2007 (8) TMI 506 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Stay of recovery proceedings initiated by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Validity of Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner in issuing recovery letter.

Stay of Recovery Proceedings:
The respondents sought stay of recovery proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,48,55,018/- along with interest and penalties. The Settlement Commission upheld the contention that the impugned OIO is non-est and directed the Central Excise Officers to decide the matter in terms of the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by the respondents seeking stay of the operation of the Assistant Commissioner's recovery letter dated 6-8-2007, instructing the Revenue to withhold the recovery proceedings until the appeals are decided.

Validity of Order-in-Original (OIO):
The Settlement Commissioner observed that the impugned OIO should not have been passed while the matter was pending before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commissioner held that the OIO is a non-est order and directed the original authority to decide the case de novo. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner's action in issuing the recovery letter dated 6-8-2007 was not sustainable, considering the pending appeals and fixed date of hearing. The Tribunal allowed the stay applications of the respondents and scheduled the appeals to be heard before the Circuit Bench at Hyderabad on 3rd September, 2007.

Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner:
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, issued a recovery letter demanding duties, penalties, and interest on 6-8-2007. The Tribunal determined that the Assistant Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by proceeding with recovery when the matter was pending before the Settlement Commission and the date of hearing was already fixed. The Tribunal deemed the Assistant Commissioner's action unsustainable and allowed the respondents' applications seeking stay of the operation of the recovery letter.