By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 07, 2018: THE Petitioner challenges the recovery letter dated 18th April 2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Silvassa which seeks to recover the arrears of Revenue arising out of the o-in-o passed in respect of one M/s. Javs Engineering India Limited from the petitioner u/s Section 11 of the CEA, 1944 and rule 230 of the CER, 1944.

It is contended that the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against them as they are not covered by the provisions of Section 11 of the Act at the relevant time when it purchased specified assets under the agreement of purchase dated 26th October 1999.

The High Court observed that the issue raised by the Petitioner is of appropriate interpretation of the Act and it is an agreed fact that the Appeal would lie from the communication to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) u/s 35 of the Act.

It was, therefore, observed that there being an efficacious remedy available under the Act, the petition cannot be entertained.

Nonetheless, the High Court noted that the Petitioner had moved the High Court immediately on receipt of communication dated 18th April 2017 by filing this Petition on 2nd May 2017 and, therefore, the time spent bonafide in prosecuting the Petition is condoned. [ M.P. Steel Corporation - 2015-TIOL-89-SC-CUS relied upon]

The Petitioner was advised to file the Appeal within a period of two weeks and also comply to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) the conditions for filing an Appeal including Section 35F of the CE Act pursuant to which the appeal would be heard on merits.

The Petition was disposed of.

(See 2018-TIOL-1832-HC-MUM-CX)