Page 58 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A74 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Condensate obtained as by-product while processing natu-
ral gas, whether liable to Oil Cess?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant on 16-8-2019 after condoning the delay is-
sued notice in the Civil Appeal Diary No. 20268 of 2019 filed by Commissioner
of Central Excise, Jaipur-II against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/53447-
53449/2018-EX(DB), dated 20-12-2018 as reported in 2019 (369) E.L.T. 895 (Tri. -
Del.) (Focus Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner). While issuing the notice, the Supreme
Court passed the following order :
“It is stated that the similar matter is pending consideration, in which
notice has been issued.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Learned Counsel, appears and accepts notice for
the caveator(s).
Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Tag with C.A. Nos. 5719-5720/2015.
List after six weeks.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that condensate
obtained as a by-product while processing natural gas cannot be considered as a
petroleum product and therefore, not liable to Oil Cess.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Mr.
Shekhar Vyas, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi and Ms. Nitya
Rao, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava,
Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna and Ms. Vizokenuo S.,
Advocates, for the Respondent.
EOU — Cenvat credit suo motu re-credited in Cenvat ac-
count — Stay against recovery of such amount grant-
ed by High Court
The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harsha
Devani and Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.P. Thaker on 3-12-2018 after condoning the
delay issued notice in R/Special Civil Application No. 18263 of 2018 filed by
Kaizen Switchgear Products (Kaizen Switchgear Products v. Union of India).
The aforesaid application has been filed by the applicant challenging or-
der of the Revisionary Authority whereby it has been held that taking of suo motu
re-credit by an EOU in its Cenvat account was illegal and the adjudicating au-
thority was directed to initiate action for recovery of such unauthorized Cenvat
credit.
The applicant has contended that since the Revisionary Authority him-
self had passed several orders in other cases permitting re-credit of Cenvat cred-
it, he was not justified in directing recovery of Cenvat credit in his case which
would have become infructuous after coming into force GST w.e.f. 1-7-2017. He
has also contended that the entire situation was revenue neutral.
The High Court after hearing the Advocate for the applicant while di-
recting issuance of notice in the application has also directed the respondents not
to take any coercive action for recovery of amount pursuant to the impugned
order.
REPRESENTED BY : Gupta Law Associates, for the Petitioner.
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  74