Kamrup Coke Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA And 8 Ors
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, outlining their claim for exemption from excise duty and refund of excise duty. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner to pass a reasoned order on this representation within two months of its receipt. If the Commissioner found the petitioner entitled to the exemption, consequential orders were to be passed. Conversely, if the petitioner was not found entitled, a copy of the reasoned order was to be communicated to them. The writ petition was disposed of based on this agreement.
Facts
The petitioner, Kamrup Coke Industries, a partnership firm, is an assessee under the Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner had claimed an exemption from excise duty under notification No. 20/2007-CE dated April 25, 2007. However, this claim for exemption had not been considered by the respondent authorities. The petitioner approached the High Court with this grievance, seeking a direction for their claim to be considered. The respondents, including the Union of India and GST authorities, were represented before the Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a consideration of their claim for exemption from excise duty under notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007, given that it has not been considered by the respondent authorities? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their claim for excise duty exemption has not been considered by the respondent authorities, and they seek a direction for such consideration. They proposed submitting a detailed representation to the Principal Commissioner of Excise, GST, Guwahati, and requested a reasoned order on their claim. Revenue/State's contention: The counsel for the GST respondents did not object to the petitioner's proposal for submitting a representation and obtaining a reasoned order.
Sections Cited
notification No.20/2007-CE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010164182021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5536/2021 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.# 2/4 (EARLIER KNOWN AS DEPUTY CO
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.