Page 170 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

56 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

12. Learned Counsel for the respondent attempted to develop the ground
for resisting this petition based upon plea of prejudice. We are of the view
that said ground would also not be available to the respondent, as notice
dated 22-8-2002 had not been acted for long long period of 17 years, that in
itself is sufficient to accept and justify the plea of prejudice without any fur-
ther probing into the matter. The resurrection of notice dated 22-8-2002 as-
suming for the sake of convenience without admitting that was admittedly
after subsequent notice, then also, in view of established principles of law
and provisions of statute, the said resurrection would be not permissible in
light of decisions cited hereinabove.”
11. In our view, the issue involved in this petition is therefore, squarely
covered by the decisions of this Court and the impugned show cause notices
cannot be permitted to be processed further.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notices at Annexure B/1
to B/25 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. The parties are
left to bear their own costs.
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 56 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

I.P. Mukerji and Md. Nizamuddin, JJ.
RASOI LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

M.A.T. No. 1007 of 2018, decided on 21-8-2019
1
Money Credit Scheme - Accumulated credit on abolishing of scheme -
Utilization - Revenue in response to assessee’s communication denying utili-
zation of credit ibid on ground that credit could have been utilized for speci-
fied products only and not for other products - HELD : Apex Court in case of
Dai Itchi Karkaria in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), and subsequent judgments
has held that Modvat credit could be utilised for manufacture of any final
product of same manufacturer - In view of above, notwithstanding that afore-
said decision is not in respect of Money Credit Scheme, department directed to
consider petitioner’s request in proper proceedings after hearing them and
keeping in mind various decisions of Apex Court and also decisions of this
High Court on aforesaid scheme - All issues kept open - Rule 57K of erstwhile
Central Excise Rules,1944 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 12, 13, 14,
15]
Matter remanded
CASES CITED
Collector v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. — 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) — Relied on ................... [Paras 7, 12, 13]
Commissioner v. New Swadeshi Sugar Mills — 2015 (323) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) — Referred .............. [Para 8]
Rasoi Limited v. Union of India — W.P. No. 29003 (W) of 2016, decided on 20-6-2018
by Calcutta High Court — Referred ............................................................................................. [Para 6]
Rasoi Ltd. v. Union of India — 2004 (176) E.L.T. 101 (Cal.) — Referred .......................................... [Para 10]
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A19
(S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  218