9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 314 - HC - Central ExciseRecovery orders - Held that - We share the concern of the department that the recoveries in the present case has been stalled for over 10 years by now, even after filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner s appeal before the Tribunal therefore must be heard as early as possible. However, a stay which was granted as far back in the year 2003, cannot be vacated in facts of the present case when we find that the Tribunal is unable to either hear the appeal or to decide the petitioner s application for extension of stay for want of the appeal papers. The petitioner shall reconstruct the appeal before the Tribunal latest by 25.04.2016 with a copy to the department.
Issues Involved:
Petition for protection against recovery in connection with an order in original dated 25.01.2001 subject to second appeal before CESTAT in Appeal No. E1227/ 03. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal Proceedings and Stay Extension The petitioner sought protection against recovery related to an order dated 25.01.2001, subject to a second appeal before CESTAT in Appeal No. E1227/ 03. The Tribunal had initially granted a stay against recoveries, with the petitioner receiving periodical extensions of stay. However, the department had been pressing for recoveries for the past few years due to the petitioner's inability to produce the order of the Tribunal extending interim relief. Issue 2: Transfer of Appeal Papers The appeal before CESTAT was originally presented before the Mumbai Bench but had to be transferred to the Ahmedabad Tribunal in 2007. Due to this transfer, the appeal papers were not easily traceable, causing delays. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay extension application was not their responsibility and, therefore, recovery should not be allowed in the meantime. Issue 3: Consideration and Disposal of Appeal The Court acknowledged the department's concern regarding the prolonged stall in recoveries for over 10 years despite the appeal before the Tribunal. It was emphasized that the petitioner's appeal must be heard expeditiously. However, considering the circumstances where the Tribunal was unable to hear the appeal or decide on the extension of stay due to missing appeal papers, the Court decided not to vacate the stay granted in 2003. Final Directions The Court disposed of the petition with specific directions: the petitioner was instructed to reconstruct the appeal before the Tribunal by a specified date and provide a copy to the department. The Tribunal was requested to prioritize the consideration and disposal of the appeal by a set deadline, during which no coercive recovery was permitted. If the Tribunal failed to decide by the deadline, the petitioner could apply for an extension of stay, to be evaluated independently of the current order based on emerging facts. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the appeal proceedings, transfer of appeal papers, and the final directions issued by the Court to address the concerns raised by the petitioner and the department regarding the recovery and stay extension.
|
