JINDAL SAW LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 17-9-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why (i) the certificate granted on 28-7-2003 about completion of plant should not be considered and treated as to have been obtained by misleading the departmental officers; (ii) the amount of Rs. 41,53,10,827/- (Rupees forty one crore fifty three lakhs ten thousand eight hundred twenty seven only) claimed as benefit under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. as amended and erroneously refunded to them in respect of the clearance made for the period from August 2003 to February 2008 should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of the condition 3(v)(a) of said Notification/under the proviso (1) to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 considering the assessee obtained the certificate by reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of the facts and contravening the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, (iii) Penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be imposed on them, (iv) Interest at the appropriate rate under the provisions of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with proviso 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 39/2001- C.E., dated 31-7-2001 as amended should not be recovered from them, and (v) why penalty under provisions of Rule 26 of C. Ex. Rules, 2002 should not be imposed upon Shri Ashok Vaishnav Vice President Saw Pipe Ltd. (AC and CWC) now M/s. Jindal Saw Ltd. (AC and CWC) for his omissions and commissions which have aided and abetted the claim in availing the wrong benefit of Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. as amended.

(3.) Considering the fact that the show cause notice is dated 17-9-2008, whereas the certificate of exemption granted in favour of the petitioner is dated 28-7-2003, the learned counsel for the respondents had been called upon by the Court to explain as to why the show cause notice should not be considered to have been issued beyond the extended period of limitation as provided under Section 11A of the Act.