9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Relief sought in the writ petition regarding recovery of disputed demand pending appeal - Application under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Inaction of the appellate authority in deciding on the application under the proviso - Coercive measures threatened by respondents for recovery of disputed dues Analysis: The judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking relief against the recovery of disputed demand pending appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, accompanied by an application under the proviso to dispense with the pre-deposit of dues. The proviso allows the appellate authority to waive the deposit if it would cause undue hardship to the appellant. The petitioner's application under the proviso was pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, with no decision made. Despite this, the respondents threatened to recover the disputed dues through coercive measures, prompting the petitioner to seek a mandamus to prevent such action until a decision is made on the application. The court highlighted the statutory obligation under Section 35F, which mandates the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied unless the appellate authority exercises its discretion under the proviso. The court emphasized that the inaction of the appellate authority in deciding on the application while allowing the recovery of disputed dues would defeat the purpose of the proviso and deprive the appellant of their rights. Citing the Supreme Court case of L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, the court stressed the importance of public officers exercising their authority appropriately when circumstances warrant it. In response to the situation, the court issued a mandamus directing the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks from the date of filing the order. The petitioner agreed to submit a copy of the order promptly and not seek adjournments. Additionally, the court ordered a stay on the recovery of the disputed amount until the application is decided. With these directions in place, the writ petition was finally disposed of, and a certified copy of the order was to be provided to the petitioner's counsel.
|
