M/S Raj Fabricators And vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raj Fabricators and Erectors, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ballari, under Section 73(1) read with Sections 75, 77(1)(c)(i), 70, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This order pertained to the years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The petitioner also challenged a consequential endorsement/letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ballari, along with an enclosure marked as a Panchnama. The petitioner sought to quash these orders for being without jurisdiction and contrary to the Finance Act, 1994. Alternatively, the petitioner requested directions to serve a copy of the impugned order to enable them to file an appeal, with the appellate authority directed to admit the appeal without insisting on the delay.

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had amicably resolved the dispute with the departments in terms of an applicable scheme. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, reserving liberty to revive it if the resolution did not materialize. The Court placed the submission on record and accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty as sought by the petitioner. No specific findings were made on the merits of the challenge to the impugned orders, as the matter was resolved by withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax under Section 73(1) read with Sections 75, 77(1)(c)(i), 70, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15, and the consequential endorsement/letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, are without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and contrary to the Finance Act, 1994. They sought to quash these orders. Alternatively, they sought a direction for the service of the original order to enable them to file an appeal within the stipulated period, with a direction to the appellate authority to condone any delay. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue).