2006 (1) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of Stay Petition filed by the appellant company.
2. Coercive recovery actions by Revenue Authorities during pendency of Stay Petition.
3. Applicability of Board's Circulars on recovery proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Early hearing of Stay Petition
The appellant company filed a Miscellaneous Application for early hearing of their Stay Petition due to the Revenue Authorities' demand for immediate payment of duty and penalty amounts. The consultant for the appellant referred to the Rajasthan High Court's judgment and various Tribunal decisions emphasizing the prohibition of coercive recovery actions while a Stay Petition is pending. The consultant argued for an early hearing based on legal precedents and circulars.

Issue 2: Coercive recovery actions during pendency of Stay Petition
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the Rajasthan High Court's judgment and previous Tribunal decisions clearly prohibited Revenue Officers from taking coercive measures against the appellant company during the pendency of their Stay Petition. Consequently, the Tribunal granted an Interim Order of stay of recovery until the Stay Petition is resolved, citing the duty amount involved and the absence of grounds for early hearing.

Issue 3: Applicability of Board's Circulars
The Tribunal examined the relevance of the Board's Circulars, particularly Circular No. 788/21/2004-CX, highlighted by the Revenue representative. It clarified that while the mentioned Circular applied to first appeals before the Tribunal, it did not address second appeals. The Tribunal reaffirmed the stance taken in the Rajasthan High Court's judgment and previous Tribunal decisions, emphasizing the restriction on coercive actions by Revenue Officers during the pendency of Stay Petitions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant company, granting an Interim Order of stay of recovery and disposing of the Miscellaneous Application for early hearing. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal precedents and circulars in matters concerning coercive recovery actions during the appeal process.