2006 (2) TMI 387 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for interim stay of recovery pending clearance from High Power Committee and waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appellants, a Public Sector Undertaking, filed an appeal against a duty demand exceeding Rs. 12 Crores for two periods. They sought ad interim stay of recovery pending clearance from the High Power Committee and waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The demand notice issued by the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner required payment by a specified date, failing which recovery action would be initiated under relevant provisions. The appellants contended that the demand notice contravened Circular No. 316/32/97-Cx, which stipulated suspension of the impugned order's operation until resolution by the Committee on Disputes. Despite representations to halt recovery proceedings, no response was received, prompting the appellants to seek Tribunal intervention under Rules 40 and 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

The appellants argued that the Tribunal possessed the authority to grant ad interim stay of recovery in unique circumstances to serve justice effectively. Citing a Supreme Court ruling in UOI v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., it was emphasized that the Tribunal's incidental and ancillary powers were essential to enforce the statutory powers granted. Conversely, the SDR contended that granting ad interim stay in a non-maintainable appeal without High Power Committee clearance might lead to an influx of similar applications, advocating caution in entertaining such requests.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal invoked its incidental and ancillary powers in alignment with Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Referring to the Supreme Court's approval in cases like Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., the Tribunal deemed it necessary to intervene for the ends of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restrained the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner and subordinate officers from enforcing the demand until the High Power Committee disposed of the appellants' application, ensuring compliance with the Board's instructions and preventing coercive recovery actions.