2018 (9) TMI 334 - HC - Customs

Recovery of arrears of Revenue - Petitioner s grievance is that the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against them, as they are not covered by the provisions of Section 11 of the Act at the relevant time when it purchased specified assets under the agreement of purchase dated 26th October 1999 - Held that - The issue raised by the Petitioner in this case is of the appropriate interpretation of the Act. It is agreed position between the parties that the Appeal would lie from the Communication dated 18th April 2017 to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Act. As there is an efficacious remedy available under the Act, we decline to entertain this Petition - petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to recovery letter dated 18th April 2017 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Division-V, Silvassa. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding recovery proceedings against the Petitioner. Availability of an efficacious remedy under the Act. Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal.

Analysis:
The Petition challenges a recovery letter dated 18th April 2017 seeking to recover arrears of Revenue from the Petitioner under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The Petitioner contends that the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against them as they were not covered by the provisions of Section 11 at the relevant time when they purchased specified assets. The central issue revolves around the interpretation of the Act in this context, specifically whether the recovery notice is without jurisdiction. It is acknowledged that an Appeal would lie from the communication dated 18th April 2017 to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Act.

The Court, while recognizing the availability of an efficacious remedy under the Act, declines to entertain the Petition. However, the Court condones the time spent in prosecuting the Petition, considering that the Petitioner promptly moved the Court upon receiving the communication dated 18th April 2017. The Court cites the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, emphasizing the exclusion of time spent bonafide in prosecuting a challenge in a Court not having jurisdiction. Consequently, if the Petitioner files an Appeal within two weeks and fulfills all statutory requirements for entertaining the Appeal, it will be decided on merits by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Petition is disposed of in accordance with the direction provided by the Court. The key takeaway from the judgment is the importance of timely filing an Appeal and complying with statutory requirements to seek redressal under the Act. The Court's decision underscores the significance of adhering to procedural norms while ensuring that bonafide actions are duly considered in legal proceedings.