2009 (10) TMI 479 - HC - Central Excise

Stay - The petitioner came to be served with a show-cause notice to explain the excess stock of goods found in its premises, which was accounted for. One invoice was also found and it was alleged that it was cleared upon less payment of duty by showing lesser quantity of the goods and as such, demand of Rs. 12,03,288/- was levelled against the petitioner by the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the adjudicating authority passed an order confirming the entire demand of duty and penalties. Held that Appeal before Tribunal preferred belatedly and condonation of delay yet to be decided. Tribunal not available, to meet ends of justice, petitioner granted protection against recovery upon deposit of additional amount.

Summary

Issues: Central Excise duty demand, Show-cause notice, Order-in-Original, Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Challenge before CESTAT, Recovery notices, Petition for writ of mandamus and/or certiorari, Delay condonation application, Stay application, Protection against recovery.

In this case, the petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of Copper & Brass Strips and Rod, was served with a show-cause notice regarding excess stock of goods and alleged duty evasion. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and penalties. An appeal was made, leading to the original order being set aside and remanded. Subsequently, a new order was passed, challenged by revenue authorities, and an order-in-appeal was issued. The petitioner then approached CESTAT, seeking admission despite being time-barred, with applications for delay condonation and stay. Recovery notices were issued while the matter was pending, prompting the petitioner to file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari to prevent coercive recovery until the case's final disposal. The High Court, considering the delay in CESTAT proceedings, directed the petitioner to deposit an additional sum towards the demand within five weeks to stay recovery until the delay condonation application is decided. The court ruled that recovery against the petitioner should not proceed until CESTAT decides on the delay condonation application or issues further orders regarding the stay application, provided the additional amount is deposited within the specified timeframe. The petition was disposed of with this direction, granting protection against recovery subject to the specified conditions.