Kamrup Coke Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA And 8 Ors
Held
The Court allowed the interlocutory application for correction. It found that the petitioner's contention regarding the correct notification numbers was valid. The Court directed that paragraph 2 of the order dated 25.10.2021 in WP(C)/5536/2021 be amended to reflect the correct notification numbers. The amended paragraph 2 now reads: 'The petitioner who is an assessee under the Excise Act, 1944 claimed certain exemption in excise duty under the notification no. 32/1999 and 33/1999-CE dated 08.07.1999. The claim for the excise exemption has not yet been considered by the respondent authority. With the above limited grievance, the petitioner is before the Court.' The Court held that the interlocutory application was allowed in these terms, and the order dated 25.10.2021 should be read incorporating these corrections. No other issues were decided.
Facts
The petitioner, Kamrup Coke Industries, a partnership firm, filed an interlocutory application (I.A.) seeking a correction in a previous High Court order dated 25.10.2021 in WP(C)/5536/2021. The original order incorrectly cited notification number 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 in paragraph 2. The petitioner contended that the correct notification numbers relevant to their claim for excise duty exemption were notification no. 32/1999 and 33/1999-CE dated 08.07.1999. The petitioner, an assessee under the Excise Act, 1944, had their claim for exemption under these notifications pending consideration by the respondent authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the correct notification numbers for the petitioner's claim of excise duty exemption are notification no. 32/1999 and 33/1999-CE dated 08.07.1999, and not notification no. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007, as stated in the previous order. The petitioner argued that the notification numbers cited in the previous order were incorrect and that the correct notifications under which they claimed excise duty exemption were 32/1999 and 33/1999-CE dated 08.07.1999. The respondents, represented by GST counsel, did not appear to contest this specific correction sought by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010185362021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1972/2021 KAMRUP COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A, BIPLAB ANUKUL, CHANDRA STREET, 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KONKATA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT BARSOJAI, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-28, DIST. KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI HANSRAJ JAIN. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPTT. OF REVENUE) NEW DELHI. 3:THE COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICES TAX) BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI. 4:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX) BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
Page No.# 2/3 (EARLIER KNOWN AS DEP
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.