- (1.)The impugnment, common in the instant batch of proceedings, is mounted against the Circular No.967/01/2013-CX dated 1.1.2013 communicated by letter F.No.208/36/2012-CX.6 dated 1st January, 2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi thereby directing initiation of recovery proceedings against the confirmed demands in the manner corresponding to the contingencies as detailed therein. As consequent to this circular demands have been raised by the concerned revenue authorities, the petitioners being aggrieved thereby, seek redress.
(2.)We have heard Mr.Rishabh Khandelwal, Mr.Sanjay Jhanwar, Mr.Sameer Jain, Mr.R.L.Agarwal and Mr.P.K.Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Anil Mehta and Mr.Ajay Shukhla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.)Considering the subject matter of assailment and the analogy of the grounds thereof, dilation on the individual facts is considered inessential and skeletal narration of the factual background from the pleadings of lead case-D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1891/13 would suffice. The petitioner-Mangalam Cement Limited has pleaded that it is engaged in the business of production/manufacture and sale of cement and is registered manufacturer of excisable goods. A show cause notice being C.No.V(25)3/18/Demand/2011/4152 dated 13.6.2011 was issued by the departmental authorities on the basis of scrutiny of monthly ER Returns filed by the petitioner for the months from June, 2010 to December, 2010 alleging that it had availed the cenvat credit of service tax paid on different services received by it in relation to maintenance and repair works of its residential colony, which did not appear to be eligible input services as per Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Rules of 2004"). Penalty together with interest was proposed under the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2004.