2013 (6) TMI 614 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery - circular dated 1.3.2013 - Held that - Having regard to the identicalness of the challenge made in the instant writ petition, we deem it expedient to close this matter by giving liberty to the petitioner to lay before the authority concerned a copy of the judgment and order 2013 (4) TMI 102 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT for the needful.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Circular No.967/01/2013-CX dated 01.01.2013 regarding recovery proceedings initiation.
2. Impact of previous judgments on the present cases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Circular No.967/01/2013-CX dated 01.01.2013 regarding recovery proceedings initiation:
The High Court, in a previous order dated 01.03.2013, found the impugned Circular non est in situations where appeals with stay applications were filed, but no stay was granted and applications remained pending for reasons not attributable to the assessees. The Court directed that no coercive steps for recovery should be initiated in such cases. Instead, the authorities were instructed to ensure prompt hearing of appeals and interim applications, with the petitioners' cooperation. The Court clarified that its decision did not comment on the merits of the appeals, leaving the decisions to the concerned forums. The recent order reiterated the stance taken in the previous judgment, allowing the petitions and specifying that no costs were to be incurred.

Issue 2: Impact of previous judgments on the present cases:
A subsequent order dated 15.4.2013, following the initial judgment, reiterated the interference with the Circular based on the previous decision. The Court, considering the similarity of challenges in the present writ petition, granted the petitioner liberty to present a copy of the earlier judgment for necessary action. The stay application was also disposed of in line with the previous rulings. The Court concluded that the position taken in the previous orders applied directly to the present cases, leading to the allowance of the petitions without any costs incurred.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgments emphasized the importance of fair treatment in cases where stay applications were pending without fault on the part of the assessees, preventing coercive recovery measures until the appeals were duly heard. The Court's consistent stance on the matter, as reflected in multiple orders, provided clarity and protection to the petitioners involved in the proceedings.