The
attention of the Court was drawn to an order dated 17th
March 2011 passed
by this High Court in the case of Gopal Iron & Steel Co.
(Gujarat) Ltd. v. Union of India, in Special Civil Application No.501
of 2011, wherein, at the time of admitting the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioners had stated that the petitioners wish to
press the sole ground of challenge viz., that with the omission of
section 3A of the Central Excise Act, without any corresponding
saving clause, no proceedings for levy of excise duty under deeming
fiction of section 33A would survive and the proceedings instituted
by the Department, culminating into passing of the impugned order,
therefore, is wholly without authority. It was further stated that
the petitioners wish to press no other ground against the order of
the Commissioner. The learned counsel submitted that in the facts of
the present case also against the order made by the adjudicating
authority, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy
available under the relevant statutory provisions and as such, the
challenge in the petition may be limited to the fresh challenge
raised in the present application.
6.3 As regards the reliance placed by the respondent in the case of Steelco Gujarat (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was eligibility to DFIA Scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy when the credit is reversed. The said decision in no way deals with interest and penal liability under the Central Excise Act or the Cenvat Credit Rules; therefore, the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present case.
6. At the outset, we find that the contention of the ld.Counsel that they have reversed an amount of Rs.3,26,564/- of the CENVAT Credit availed on common input services for the period 18.01.2007 to 31.03.2008 and 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010. To that extent, we hold that the appellant has complied with the law as has been settled by the higher Court that once the CENVAT Credit is reversed, it has to be held that the appellant had not availed such CENVAT Credit. For this, we gainfully rely upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CCE Mumbai Vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg.Co.Ltd 2007 (215) ELT 3 (SC), which has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Steelco Gujarat Ltd Vs. UoI 2012 (285) ELT 161 (Bom.)
2 In
the aforesaid circumstances, the Court would have, in normal
circumstances, issued notice to the Official Liquidator. However, it
is an accepted position that the dispute raised in the present
petition is no longer res integra. By a judgment and order dated
04.07.2006 rendered in case of M/s. Gopal Iron & Steel Co.,
(Gujarat) Ltd. Vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application
No. 8387 of 2003 and cognate matters this Court has upheld the
validity of provisions of Rule 3 brought into effect after exercise
of the powers conferred u/s. 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act,1944. In
the circumstances, the petition is required to be rejected for the
same reasons as recorded in judgment dated 04.07.2006 in Special
Civil Application No. 8387 of 2003 and cognate matters.
M/s. Gopal Iron & Steel Co (Gujarat) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Hon'ble High Court order dated 09.02.2024
CCE V/s. Cosmo Denim 2017(1) TMI 1021- Gujarat High Court
UOI V/s. Supreme Steel and General Mills 2001(133) ELT 513
(S.C.)
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court order dated 02.08.1999 in case of
M/s. Choksi Silk Mills V/s. UOI
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court order dated 11.12.2002 in case of
M/s. Somnath Steel Industries V/s.UOI
Mahalaxmi Fibers Pvt.Ltd. V/s. UOI 2019(366) ELT 810 (Guj.)