1992 (11) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of Government dues in spite of classification of goods having already decided by Tribunal

Summary

Issues: Stay application regarding order of Collector (Allahabad) dated 6-4-1992, MODVAT matter, classification dispute, coercive action, direction for returning collected amount, invoking inherent powers of the Court, small assessee, grievance with Assistant Collector's action, Tribunal's order dated 21-9-1992, impact on present case, non-compliance with Collector (Appeals) order, Tribunal's interference, settlement of classification aspect, awaiting proper officer's orders.

The judgment pertains to a stay application filed concerning the order of the Collector (Allahabad) dated 6-4-1992. The counsel for the appellants initially sought a stay on the lower authorities' orders and requested the respondents to refrain from coercive action. The matter involves MODVAT where the Collector (Appeals) remanded the issue to the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, a classification dispute was resolved by the Tribunal through an order dated 21-9-1992. The appellants claimed that despite the remand by the Collector (Appeals), the Department pressured them to pay the amount, leading to the debiting of the entire sum as evidenced by a letter dated 22-4-1992.

The appellants no longer pressed for a stay on the Collector (Appeals) order due to the Tribunal's order of 21-9-1992. However, they sought a direction for the return of the unlawfully collected amount by the lower authorities. Additionally, they requested an expedited hearing of the matter. The counsel clarified that their application did not fall under Section 35F but was based on the inherent powers of the Court, emphasizing the small assessee status of the applicant.

The Department's representative opposed the prayer, asserting that the issue differed from the one resolved in the Tribunal's order of 21-9-1992, which pertained solely to classification and not the raw materials involved in the present case. The Department suggested that if the appellants were aggrieved by the Assistant Collector's actions, they could approach the Collector or the Principal Collector for redress.

After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal noted that the appellants no longer sought a stay on the Collector (Appeals) order. The Tribunal emphasized that the impact of the order dated 21-9-1992 on the present case could be better evaluated during the hearing and not at the current stage. It was highlighted that if there were issues with the Assistant Collector's actions amounting to non-compliance with the Collector (Appeals) order, the appellants should address the matter with the relevant authorities.

The Tribunal clarified that the stay application did not fall under Section 35F, and at this stage, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to intervene based on the observations made. Moreover, the Tribunal suggested that if the appellants had been favored by the order dated 21-9-1992 regarding the classification issue, they should await the proper officer's decisions on the classification list before making any further requests. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application in light of the circumstances.