9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 146 - HC - Central ExciseRecovery of dues - circular dated 1-1-2003 - held that - this case found to be fit one to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the stay petition as early as possible and till then, no recovery will be made by the department.
Issues:
Challenge to Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 1/1/2013, Statutory authority of Central Board of Excise & Customs to issue circular, Quashing of recovery proceedings, Direction for Appellate Authority to decide stay petition, Stay on recovery till disposal of stay petition. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 1/1/2013, seeking its quashing and setting aside. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the Central Board of Excise & Customs lacked statutory authority to issue the circular. Additionally, the petitioner requested the quashing of recovery proceedings, particularly a notice dated 4/2/2013. The petitioner argued that the circular allowed recovery from assesses who had appealed without an interim stay order, despite pending appeals. The respondent did not dispute these facts but suggested a limited interim order until the stay petition's disposal. The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had appealed the original order confirming central excise duty demand, along with a stay petition pending before the Appellate Authority. The court noted that a similar circular had been quashed by a coordinate Bench and that in related cases, the Appellate Authority had been directed to fix a date for hearing stay petitions, with a stay on recovery until their disposal. Consequently, the court directed the Appellate Authority to promptly decide the stay petition, with no recovery by the department until then. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of with a directive to the Appellate Authority to decide the stay petition within eight weeks, with parties instructed to appear before the Authority on a specified date. The court further ordered that the respondent department refrain from making any recovery until the stay petition's disposal. The stay application was also disposed of, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
