2013 (7) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery proceedings despite stay order - supply of stay order - Summon to Superintendent by the CESTAT to witness - Certified copy of Stay Order not supplied to the concerned Departmental Officer - Instead of any certified copy of the ad interim stay order dt. 07/03/2013, what was supplied to the Superintendent on 08/03/2013 was Appendix XXVI with the words Ad interim stay granted scribbled by the appellant on its left-hand side margin Held that - The Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Kakinada came all the way to Bangalore and stayed in the city overnight in order to answer our summons. He is present before us in his official uniform and has been introduced to us by the Commissioner (AR). He has been constrained to keep away from his official duties for two days on account of the reprehensible conduct of the appellant. From the submissions made before us, we are satisfied that the Superintendent s presence in the Court today was not warranted in the correct facts and circumstances of this case - Appellant to pay costs of the respondent(Department) Directed appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with the Government under the appropriate head - The witness discharged.

Summary

Issues: Miscommunication of ad interim stay order to the Department leading to summoning of Superintendent, imposition of costs on the appellant.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved a case where the appellant sought ad interim stay in response to a recovery notice based on CBEC's Circular. Initially, the Tribunal granted ad interim stay until the next hearing date. However, a subsequent issue arose when the appellant failed to properly communicate the ad interim stay order to the Department. The appellant provided a letter with a margin note stating "Ad interim stay granted" to the Superintendent, who did not acknowledge it as a valid stay order. Consequently, the Tribunal summoned the Superintendent, who appeared before the Tribunal, causing inconvenience and expenses due to the miscommunication by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct was reprehensible, resulting in the Superintendent's unnecessary presence in court. As a consequence of the miscommunication and suppression of material facts by the appellant, costs of Rs.10,000 were imposed on the appellant to be deposited with the Government within seven days, with a compliance report due on a specified date.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal first granted ad interim stay to the appellant in response to a recovery notice based on a circular. The appellant later provided a letter with a margin note indicating the stay order to the Superintendent, who did not acknowledge it as a valid stay order. The Tribunal then required the Superintendent to appear before them, causing inconvenience and expenses. The appellant admitted to not providing a certified copy of the ad interim stay order to the Superintendent, leading to the miscommunication. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's conduct, noting that the Superintendent's presence in court was unwarranted due to the appellant's actions. The Tribunal highlighted that crucial information was suppressed by the appellant during the proceedings, leading to the summoning of the Superintendent. Consequently, the Tribunal imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the appellant, directing them to deposit the amount with the Government within seven days and report compliance by a specified date. The Tribunal discharged the witness, emphasizing the repercussions of the appellant's miscommunication and suppression of facts on the proceedings and the Superintendent's unnecessary presence in court.