Thermax Ltd. VS Union of India

In a judicial proceeding before the court, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 and waived the service of Rule. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were served but did not appear. With the consent of all parties’ advocates, the matter proceeded for final disposal.

The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking several reliefs. Firstly, the petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or any other appropriate writ under Article 226. This was aimed at reviewing and potentially quashing Order No. 24/2017-CX(WZ)/ASRA/Mumbai dated 27.12.2017 issued by Respondent No. 2. Secondly, pending the final disposal of the petition, the petitioner sought an interim order directing the respondents to deposit Rs. 30,00,355/- along with interest as per Section 11AB of the Act into the court. The petitioner also requested permission to withdraw this amount subject to court-determined terms and conditions.

The petitioner company involved in the manufacture of boilers, heaters, heat pumps, and pollution control equipment for industrial use. These products are classified as capital goods under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner’s manufacturing facilities are located primarily in Pune, Maharashtra, and Baroda, Gujarat.

Thus, the petitioner’s petition challenges a specific order issued by Respondent No. 2, alleging its invalidity and seeking immediate financial relief pending the resolution of the case. The court proceedings indicate that despite service, two respondents did not appear, while the third was represented by Mr. Ankit Shah who waived further service on their behalf. With all parties consenting, the court proceeded towards final adjudication of the matter.

The proceedings began with Mr. Ankit Shah, advocate for respondent No.3, waiving service of the Rule on their behalf, while no representation was made for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite being served. With consent from all parties’ advocates, the matter proceeded for final disposal.

The petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought several reliefs: first, to issue a writ (certiorari or mandamus) to review and possibly quash Order No. 24/2017 passed by respondent No. 2 on December 27, 2017; second, to secure an interim order directing respondents to deposit Rs. 30,00,355/- with interest, pending final disposal.

The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing boilers and related industrial equipment under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, operates major facilities in Pune, Maharashtra, and Baroda, Gujarat. They claimed excise duty credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used in manufacturing. The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with a Special Economic Zone to assemble boilers for export, paying excise duty accordingly.

The core issue arose when the petitioner filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on June 16, 2008, following which a show cause notice was issued on September 12, 2008, proposing to deny the rebate. The petitioner responded on March 5, 2009, and subsequently, their rebate claim was rejected by respondent No. 3 on July 20, 2011. The appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot, was also unsuccessful on November 22, 2011, leading the petitioner to file a Revision Application before respondent No. 2.

On December 27, 2017, respondent No. 2 dismissed the Revision Application, prompting the petitioner’s current petition seeking judicial review.

In the recent hearing, Mr. Anand Nainavati, representing the petitioner, presented arguments. The case revolves around the legality and validity of the excise rebate denial, with the petitioner contending procedural fairness and adherence to excise rules.

The proceedings are positioned for adjudication on the merits of the petitioner’s claims and the legality of the actions taken by the excise authorities, highlighting the complexities of excise duty regulations and procedural compliance in industrial manufacturing sectors.

credit arises from any order of revision, appeal, review or reference, which is pending as on the appointed day, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be refunded in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of subsection (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944).”

7. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in view of the said provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, has to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, the amount of Rs.30,00,355/- would have to be refunded to the petitioner.

8. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has not disputed the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners.

9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 27.12.2017, passed by the Revisional Authority, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the amount of Rs.30,00,355/- shall be refunded to the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: