2013 (11) TMI 536 - HC - Central Excise

Stay Application Appeal and stay application pending Recovery notice of outstanding dues issued to petitioner based on CBEC circular dated 1-1-2013 - Held that - Relying upon LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD & OTHERS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2013 (2) TMI 188 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT there has been no delay or inaction on the part of the Petitioner and the application for stay is still pending - the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to dispose of the appeal Recovery stayed Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand for customs duty with interest.
2. Pending appeal and application for stay and dispensation of pre-deposit.
3. Recovery of outstanding dues based on a circular.
4. Legality and validity of the circular.
5. Directions given by the High Court in light of a recent judgment.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a case where the Assistant Commissioner of Customs confirmed a demand for customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,43,15,767/- along with interest. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 3 May 2012, seeking stay and dispensation of pre-deposit, and both the appeal and application are currently pending.

2. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21 January 2013 by the Assistant Commissioner to recover the outstanding dues, possibly in accordance with a Circular dated 1 January 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E. & C.). The High Court referred to a recent judgment delivered in Larsen & Toubro Limited v. The Union of India & Ors, where the legality and validity of the C.B.E. & C. circular were considered. The Court noted that there was no delay or inaction on the part of the Petitioner, and the application for stay was still pending.

3. In light of the above circumstances and the recent judgment, the High Court issued specific directions. The Petitioner was instructed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai-III with a copy of the court's order on 18 February 2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to dispose of the stay application by 30 March 2013. Additionally, it was ordered that no recovery steps should be taken against the Petitioner until the stay application was decided.

4. The High Court clarified that its directions did not imply any opinion on the rights and contentions of the parties or the merits of the demand. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition without any order as to costs, indicating that the matter was resolved based on the directions provided to the parties.