Bombay HC Directs Designated Committee to Issue Discharge Certificate and Refund Money The Bombay High Court (HC) on 9 March 2021, in the case titled Eureka Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) v. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents) directed the designated committee to issue the discharge certificate and refund amount of ₹45.60 lakh. The HC division bench comprising of Justices...
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay HC Directs Designated Committee to Issue Discharge Certificate and Refund Money
The Bombay High Court (HC) on 9 March 2021, in the case titled Eureka Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) v. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents) directed the designated committee to issue the discharge certificate and refund amount of ₹45.60 lakh.
The HC division bench comprising of Justices Milind N. Jadhav and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Designated Committee (Respondent No. 3) to issue the discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 to the petitioners after giving due consideration to the amounts of ₹50,00,000, ₹5,17,877 and ₹18,00,000 deposited by the petitioner as pre-deposit and deposit.
It further directed a refund of ₹55,56,045 deposited by the petitioner under the order of this Court within four weeks from the receipt of the order copy.
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner has been engaged in the business of manufacturing unit holding central excise registration of pressure vessels i.e. road tankers and storage tanks falling under tariff item of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Act).
Intelligence input was received by officers of the headquarters of Anti Evasion Wing Commissioner that the petitioner was clearing pressure vessels/tanks for highly inflammable gases such as LPG, Propane, Ammonia, etc. without payment of central excise duty.
It was further alleged that the petitioner has been doing it under the guise of job work of fabrication on payment of service tax and simultaneously availing credit of central excise duty paid on the inputs which were supplied free of cost by the petitioner's clients for fabrication.
The Respondent-Designated Committee issued Form SVLDRS-2 on quantifying the estimated amount payable under the scheme at ₹33,13,483.
The petitioner made an appearance before the respondent for a personal hearing and filed its written submissions. The Respondent-Designated Committee re-issued Form SVLDRS-2 estimating the amount payable by the petitioner under the scheme at ₹33,13,483.
It was submitted by the petitioner that as per Form SVLDRS-2A, the challans pertaining to two deposits namely ₹55,17,877 paid towards central excise duty and ₹18,00,000 paid towards interest were not considered while estimating the amount and if so considered the balance final amount payable under the scheme would be ₹9,95,607 only.
Respondent no. 3 through its order in Form SVLDRS-3 quantified the estimated amount payable by the petitioner under the scheme at ₹55,56,045.
The petitioner filed a petition for quashing Form No. SVLDRS-3 and for re-determination of the 'amount payable' under the scheme at ₹9,95,607.
The HC quashed Form No. SVLDRS-3 subject to the petitioner depositing the sum of ₹55,56,045 with the respondents. The Court further directed the respondents to refund the said amount along with giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for estimation and computation of its liability under the scheme.