2016 (5) TMI 509 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking direction to CESTAT to decide the restoration appeal as well as the stay application, expeditiously, and till then, recovery may not be initiated against the petitioner - Appeal was dismissed for not availing permission from the Committee of Disputes and after getting permitted the restoration application filed - Petitioner submitted that in case recovery is made without considering the stay application of the petitioner, it shall suffer irreparable loss - Held that - in case the petitioner files a fresh application for early hearing of the restoration application, as well as the stay application, before the CESTAT, the same shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of filing of the applications - Writ petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenging demand of Service Tax; Delay in deciding restoration application and stay application by CESTAT; Prayer for direction to CESTAT to expedite decision-making process.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a public sector undertaking, approached the court seeking direction to the CESTAT for expeditious disposal of the restoration application and stay application, preventing recovery until a decision is made. The petitioner's appeal before CESTAT was dismissed earlier due to lack of clearance from the Committee of Disputes, as mandated by a Supreme Court judgment. Despite permission granted by the Committee of Disputes, the restoration application remained pending, and recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The respondent argued that since the appeal was dismissed and the restoration application not yet allowed, there was no pending appeal in legal terms, thus no consideration for the stay application was warranted.

Upon hearing both parties, the court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that if the petitioner files a fresh application for early hearing of the restoration and stay applications before CESTAT, they should be decided promptly, preferably within six weeks from the date of filing. The court emphasized the need for expeditious consideration of the applications to prevent any irreparable loss to the petitioner, a public sector undertaking. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the pending matters before CESTAT, addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the delay in decision-making processes.