Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Bhushan Steel Limited vs Union Of India & Others on 9 February, 2010

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH.


                                          C.W.P. No.2249 of 2010
                                         Date of decision: 9.2.2010

M/s Bhushan Steel Limited.
                                                      -----Petitioner.
                                Vs.
Union of India & others.
                                                   -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

Present:-    Mr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate &
             Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
                     ---

ORDER:

1. This petition seeks quashing of Show Cause Notice dated 15.7.2009, Annexure P-4, alleging that the process of the petitioner-assessee did not amount to 'manufacturing' for purposes of levy of central excise duty, as no new commodity was being produced. It was further alleged that the assessee was cutting pipes into smaller size only. In such circumstances, CENVAT Credit could not be availed by discharging the duty liability. The assessee availed CENVAT Credit wrongly by suppressing material information.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration certificate was duly granted to the petitioner after due CWP No.2249 of 2010 2 scrutiny and the process employed by the petitioner amounted to manufacturing and CENVAT Credit was rightly availed. Once it was considered as manufacturing and excise duty was paid in that status, the CENVAT Credit available could not be reversed. Reliance has been placed on an order of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd. 2007 (218) ELT 354.

4. We are of the view that at this stage, only a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has remedy of replying the same. In view of availability of the said alternative remedy, this petition cannot be entertained at this stage.

5. The petition is dismissed.


                                        (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                JUDGE


February 09, 2010                            ( ALOK SINGH )
ashwani                                           JUDGE