2016 (8) TMI 10 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation - appellants carrying out job work on the goods received from the principal manufacturer and after carrying out the carban lining the same were returned to the principal manufacturer. - tribunal has granted stay - demand for the subsequent period raised on the similar issue - Held that - The show cause notices, dated 05.06.2015 and 26.10.2015, issued by the first respondent shall be kept in abeyance, till the disposal of the Appeals filed by the petitioner as against order in original, dated 28.05.2014. For the subsequent periods, it is open to the first respondent to raise demand, however, the first respondent is precluded from enforcing the same against the petitioner. - Interim relief granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Writ petition seeking mandamus to keep demand issue in abeyance
- Tribunal's order granting waiver of total demand
- Repeated issuance of demand notices by the first respondent

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition requesting a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to keep the issue of passing final orders of the statement of demands on hold until the petitioner's Appeals in E/41640/14 and E/41641/14 are disposed of by the second respondent-Tribunal. The petitioner's Appeals were related to an earlier period where an adjudication order was passed confirming the proposals of the statement of demand. The Tribunal had allowed stay applications and granted waiver of the total demand for the previous period. The petitioner sought to prevent the first respondent from passing final orders on the new demands until the Appeals were resolved.

2. The Tribunal's order granting waiver of total demand for the previous period had not been challenged or altered by the Department or the Division Bench of the Court. Despite this, the first respondent issued two show cause notices proposing to confirm the statement of demand for subsequent periods. The petitioner argued that this repeated issuance of demand notices would lead to multiple proceedings. The Court, while acknowledging the statutory duties of the first respondent, directed that the show cause notices be kept in abeyance until the Appeals against the earlier order were finalized. The first respondent was allowed to raise demands for subsequent periods but could not enforce them until the Appeals were resolved to prevent limitation issues.

3. The Court balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the first respondent to raise demands for subsequent periods but preventing enforcement until the Appeals were concluded. This approach aimed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings while ensuring the demands were not time-barred. The petitioner had agreed to this procedure in their affidavit supporting the Writ Petition. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition accordingly, with connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed and no costs awarded.