2014 (5) TMI 52 - HC - Customs

Payment of Demand - Non-sitting Tribunal - Release of duty drawbacks Commencement of Coercive Steps Undisposed Stay petition Held That - However, as on date, since the first respondent/the Tribunal is vacant for some time and in the meanwhile by taking advantage of non-sitting of the Tribunal, as the second respondent is taking coercive steps, this Court directs the second respondent not to take any coercive steps till the disposal of the stay petition filed by the petitioner in No. C/S/266-2011 in C/357/2011, dated 23-11-2011 Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus directing the release of duty drawback amounts.
2. Appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. 3 of 2011 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
3. Delay in functioning of the Appellate Tribunal due to lack of quorum.
4. Coercive actions by the second respondent during the Tribunal's non-sitting period.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, K.G. Denim Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the duty drawback amounts withheld without legal authority. The petitioner also requested a stay on any recovery proceedings until the disposal of a stay petition filed earlier. The High Court heard arguments from both parties and decided to take up the writ petition for final disposal.

2. The petitioner had appealed against Order-in-Original No. 3 of 2011 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. However, the Tribunal had not been functioning due to a lack of quorum, preventing the petitioner from having a fair hearing. Concerns were raised that the second respondent was pressuring the petitioner to pay the confirmed demand during this period of non-sitting of the Tribunal.

3. The counsel for the second respondent assured the Court that the vacancies in the Tribunal would soon be filled, and the Tribunal would resume its operations. Despite this assurance, the High Court acknowledged the current vacancy in the Tribunal and the coercive actions taken by the second respondent during this period. As a result, the Court directed the second respondent to refrain from taking any coercive steps until the stay petition was resolved.

4. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the second respondent to halt coercive actions. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed without any costs imposed. The judgment aimed to ensure fairness and procedural justice for the petitioner amid the delay in the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal.