HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) The main legal issues involved in this Writ Petition are as to whether the respondent Central Excise Authority can recover demand relating to central excise duty, interest and penalty without service of adjudication order dtd. 17/10/2012 and without establishing from any material documents about actual proof of any service of the said adjudication order upon the petitioner in compliance of the statutory formalities required under Sec. 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it never received the aforesaid adjudication order on the basis of which the impugned demand arises and further raises the issue as to whether the respondent CGST authority can recover amount in excess of the statutory amount which is required to be deposited in filing Appeal against the adjudication order in question and the demand arises out of the same in terms of CBDT circulars dtd. 29/2/2016 and 31/7/2017 if the petitioner has filed any appeal against the said adjudication order by making statutory deposit.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that a show-cause notice dtd. 8/4/2011 was issued to the petitioner proposing to disallow CENVAT credit of Rs.9,35,24,895.78 taken by the petitioner in respect of Naphtha during the period April, 2006 to January, 2011 which was used for manufacturing of electricity and that the petitioner replied to the said notice by its letter dtd. 18/4/2011 and also appeared for personal hearing on 25/7/2012 before the respondent authorities concerned but thereafter petitioner did not receive any further notice or order from them.