2013 (12) TMI 1237 - HC - Central Excise

Vacancy due to retirement in the Tribunal Stay application could not be taken up Held that - There was a vacancy for considerable time in the Tribunal on account of absence of a technical member and it was not functioning till very recently for that reason - although a new member is appointed to fill the said vacancy, it would still take time for it to deal with all the pending stay applications in the appeals which have been filed before it since the said vacancy arose the respondents are restrained from making recovery of the disputed duty, interest and penalty from the petitioners Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of excise duty, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944; Appeal before the appellate authority and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Vacancy in the Tribunal affecting the processing of stay applications; Coercive recovery measures initiated by the respondents; Allegations of attachment/detention of property and goods; Request for directions to restrain recovery pending consideration of stay applications.

Analysis:
The petitioners were assessed to excise duty, interest, and penalty by the 1st respondent under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Challenging this assessment, they filed appeals before the appellate authority and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking waiver of pre-deposit of disputed amounts. However, a vacancy in the Tribunal due to the retirement of a technical member delayed the processing of their stay applications, leading to coercive recovery measures by the respondents, including attachment and detention of property and goods.

Due to the delay caused by the vacancy in the Tribunal, the petitioners sought directions to restrain the recovery of disputed amounts pending the Tribunal's consideration of their stay applications. The respondents did not dispute the vacancy but mentioned that it had been recently filled. Considering the delay in processing stay applications and to ensure justice, the Court decided to restrain the respondents from making recovery until the Tribunal considers the stay applications. The detention order of the 3rd respondent was quashed, and the writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions, without costs being awarded to either party.