2017 (7) TMI 290 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of the amount of excise duty - Held that - the demand of excise duty itself could have been challenged before the Tribunal, but that demand was not challenged and attachment order was challenged in this Court. When the demand order is still there, it cannot be called as an illegal at present and further when the petitioner had undertaken to make payment of the said amount in the present petition, which was to the effect that he will deposit the amount by the end of December, 2005 and January, 2006, this Court is not expected to stay only the attachment order. The petitioner has virtually misused the process of law and the recovery was virtually stalled due the interim order passed by this Court - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for quashing of Attachment Panchnamas for recovery of excise duty - Petitioner's claim of being a sick industry - Interim relief granted by the Court - Disposal of proceedings before B.I.F.R. - Challenge of attachment order - Misuse of legal process - Continuation of interim relief - Deposit of the amount by the petitioner.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with a petition seeking the quashing of Attachment Panchnamas issued for the recovery of excise duty. The petitioner claimed to be a sick industry and had filed proceedings with B.I.F.R. during which no action could be taken. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the demanded amount in installments. The Court granted interim relief in favor of the petitioner, providing blanket protection and preventing further action by the respondents. However, it was revealed that the proceedings before B.I.F.R. were disposed of, and the petitioner failed to inform the Court about this development. The Court noted that the demand for excise duty could have been challenged before the Tribunal but was not, leading to the challenge of the attachment order in the High Court.

The Court observed that since the demand order was still valid and the petitioner had committed to making payments, the attachment could not be deemed illegal. It was highlighted that the petitioner's actions had essentially stalled the recovery process by misusing legal procedures. The petitioner's counsel argued lack of information regarding the disposal of B.I.F.R. proceedings, but the Court deemed it insufficient to adjourn the case or grant more time. Consequently, the Court held that the interim relief could not be sustained, and the proceedings could not be kept pending.

Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the previously granted interim relief was vacated. The Court expressed uncertainty regarding whether the petitioner had deposited the required amount as per the undertaking given. This aspect was left open for consideration by the respondent. The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency and proper legal procedures, highlighting the consequences of misusing legal processes and failing to inform the Court of significant developments.