9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petitioner's grievance against coercive measures for recovery of demand. Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff Act. Failure of appellate authority to hear appeal and consider stay application. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Justification for coercive measures before appellate authority's decision. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing ordinary portland cement, claimed exemption under Notification No. 12/95-C.E. Respondent No. 2 issued a notice demanding Rs. 3,24,870, which was confirmed in order Annexure P1. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and applied for stay, but the appeal was not heard, and the stay application was pending. The petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash order Annexure P1 and prevent coercive measures by Respondent No. 2. The Court noted the delay in hearing the appeal and stay application, highlighting the importance of appellate authority's timely action in such cases. The Court emphasized the principle that when a statutory appeal remedy is available, the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised unless the appellate authority fails to pass appropriate orders. In this case, the delay in hearing the appeal and stay application raised concerns about the effectiveness of the remedy of appeal. The Court stressed the necessity for the competent appellate authority to promptly address stay requests to ensure a fair process for the aggrieved party. Regarding the initiation of coercive measures by Respondent No. 2, the Court found it unjustified to take such steps before the appellate authority decides on the stay application. The Court questioned the rationale behind coercive actions when the assessing and appellate authorities are part of the same departmental hierarchy, suggesting a lack of coordination in the process. The Court directed the appellate authority to decide on the petitioner's stay application within four weeks, instructing Respondent No. 2 to refrain from coercive recovery measures until a decision is made. However, the Court clarified that if the stay request is rejected, Respondent No. 2 would be free to pursue recovery actions as necessary.
|
