2015 (8) TMI 1231 - HC - Central Excise

Extension of time for protection umbrella - waiver of pre-deposit - Apprehension of coercive action for recovery of excise duty - Held that - Court earlier granted protective umbrella to the petitioner with the spirit that the appellant should not be subjected to coercive process until he gets an opportunity to argue on waiver of pre-deposit - Taking into consideration the statement made on affidavit that the application has not come up for hearing so far before the Tribunal, the interest of justice would require this Court to extend the protective umbrella to the petitioner. - case of the petitioner has not come up for hearing even after four months, I am inclined to grant protective umbrella to the petitioner. - when the application is listed for hearing, if any adjournment is sought by the petitioner or the case is adjourned for any reason attributable to the petitioner, this protective umbrella shall lose its efficacy. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time granted by the court in a previous order for a limited period, Apprehension of coercive action by Excise authority for recovery of amount, Opposition by Excise/Revenue counsel, Granting protective umbrella to petitioner until disposal of application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit before Tribunal.

Extension of Time Granted:
The petitioner filed an application for extension of time granted by the court in a previous order. The court had initially granted a protective umbrella to the petitioner for a limited period of 4 and a half months. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case had not been taken up for hearing on stay/waiver of pre-deposit by the Tribunal within the stipulated time. The petitioner feared coercive action by the Excise authority for recovery of the amount under the pending appeal.

Apprehension of Coercive Action:
The petitioner expressed concerns about facing coercive action by the Excise authority for recovery of the amount due to the expiry of the protective umbrella period granted by the court. The petitioner sought an extension of the protective umbrella until the application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit was considered and decided by the Tribunal.

Opposition by Excise/Revenue Counsel:
The counsel representing the Excise/Revenue department opposed the petitioner's prayer for extension of the protective umbrella. Despite the opposition, the court considered the circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner's case had not been heard by the Tribunal even after four months.

Granting Protective Umbrella:
The court, in the interest of justice, decided to grant a protective umbrella to the petitioner. The court directed that the respondents should refrain from initiating any coercive proceedings to recover the amount until the disposal of the application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit before the Tribunal. However, the court clarified that if any adjournment was sought by the petitioner or if the case was adjourned for reasons attributable to the petitioner, the protective umbrella would lose its efficacy.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision to grant the protective umbrella to the petitioner until the Tribunal's decision on the application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit.