9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 249 - HC - Central ExciseStay - recovery of demand during the pendency of stay petition filed along with appeal - Job Work - Notification No. 214/86 - Cenvat Credit - allegation that principal manufacturer has not filed the requisite declaration with the Departmental authorities having jurisdiction over the petitioner-company - eligible inputs - Held that - Along with the appeals, stay petitions have also been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, and since no orders are passed in the stay petitions and as the petitioner apprehends initiation of recovery proceedings, it is appropriate for this Court to direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, to take up the stay petitions. - there shall be an order of status quo as on today, to be maintained by the parties.
Issues Involved:
Challenging Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, dated 1-1-2013, Orders-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II, filing of appeals and stay petitions before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, maintainability of Writ Petitions. Analysis: The petitioner-company contested Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, dated 1-1-2013, seeking to quash it and prevent coercive action for recovery of disputed tax, interest, and penalty. The company, a manufacturer of MS Ingots, availed Cenvat credit and conducted job work for another entity. Show cause notices were issued alleging irregularities in availing Cenvat credit, non-payment of duty, and incorrect valuation of goods. Orders-in-Original were passed confirming demands and imposing penalties. Appeals against these orders were filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The petitioner raised concerns about potential coercive actions due to the Circular issued by the second respondent. The petitioner argued that pending appeals, the Tribunal should address the stay petitions, but as the stay petitions remained unresolved and the Circular posed a threat of recovery proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court through Writ Petitions. The respondents contended that the Writ Petitions were premature, and the petitioner should await the Tribunal's decision on the stay petitions. The Court considered the petitioner's actions and the pending appeals with stay petitions before the Tribunal. It directed the Tribunal to expedite the resolution of the stay petitions within four weeks and maintained the status quo until then. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the pending stay petitions and closed the Writ Petitions without costs. In conclusion, the High Court addressed the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the Circular and the impending recovery proceedings. The Court recognized the significance of resolving the stay petitions filed along with the appeals before the Tribunal promptly. By directing the Tribunal to prioritize and decide on the stay petitions within a specified timeframe, the Court aimed to provide a timely resolution to the petitioner's apprehensions and maintain the current status until the Tribunal's decision.
|
