Case Law Details
Calcom Cement India Limited Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also present Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel for the respondent GST representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. SS Roy, learned CGC for respondent No. 1.
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, the respondent No. 2 thereby rejecting an application of the petitioner seeking for special rate fixation on the ground of delay. The said order dated 09.04.2021 was passed vide order No. 01/SR(16-17 and 17-18)/PR.COMMR/2021-22. The other order challenged in this writ petition was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, Guwahati Division-II GST, respondent No. 3 dated 05.02.2021 addressed to the respondent No. 5, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Guwahati demanding an amount of Rs. 4,37,27,129/- the purported refund of 50% in terms of interim order passed by the Apex Court in the SLP filed by Union of India.
The petitioner set up an industrial unit at village Pipulpukhuri in the district of Morigaon and the said unit commenced production from 03.10.2010. The petitioner applied for registration of its unit under North East Industrial and Investment Policy (NEIIP) 2007 for availing benefit under the said Industrial Policy, 2007 including exemption of 100% Central Excise Duty which was granted by the General Manager, DIC, Nagaon. In terms of the said Industrial Policy, 2007 the Government of India published notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 declaring exemption as per the Policy, 2007 of the Central Excise in respect of exciseable goods manufactured under the said units within the NE regions. Subsequently vide notification No. 20/2008 CE dated 27.03.2008 the refund/ exemption of excise duty was restricted to a maximum limit specified in the table annexed to the said notification dated 27.03.2008. There being violation of the Industrial Policy, 2007 various writ petitions were filed before this court learned Single Judge of this court set aside the notification dated 27.03.2008. The Union of India preferred Writ Appeal No. 243/2009 thereby challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge setting aside the notification dated 27.03.2008. During the pendency of the said writ appeal the petitioner also filed WP(C) 317/2014 challenging the said notification dated 27.03.2008. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this court vide order dated 20.11.2014 dismissed the writ appeal and allowed the WP(C) 317/2014 preferred by the petitioner and tagged with Writ Appeal No. 243/2009. The Union of India preferred SLP before the Apex Court thereby challenging the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court. The Apex Court vide order dated 07. 12.2015 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 11878/2015 directed the present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to release 50% of the amount due under the head of Central Excise to the petitioner against the solvent security as an interim measure. On the basis of the said interim order, the respondent No. 3 sanctioned refund of 50% of the entitled amount to the petitioner amounting Rs. 4,37,27,129/- vide order dated 29.03.2019.
It would not be out of place to mention that the Apex Court stayed the operation of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court subject to release of 50 % of the amount due to the various parties to the SLP including the petitioner. The Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.04.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2256-2263 of 2020 in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s VVF Ltd. allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge and consequent order of the Hon’ble Division Bench and upheld the notification dated 27.03.2008 as lawful.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
