2013 (7) TMI 434 - AT - Central Excise

Legal baking of information sought from the assessee - Application for rejection of Stay Assessee did not cooperate to give the details as per the annexure A attached to the miscellaneous application - Query as to under which provisions of the law these details are sought from the Assessee, Revenue unable to specify the provisions but tried to convince - stating that these details are being called when the assessee files an application for registration of unit Held that - Not a convincing answer of a specific query under which provisions of the law these details are required - Any information sought not having the backing of the law and if not given - cannot be the ground for seeking vacation of the stay Decided against the Revenue. Extension of Stay Application Held that - As per the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of IPCL vs. C.C.E., Vadodara 2004 (6) TMI 52 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI as upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court, states that Revenue gets the liberty to bring to the notice of the Tribunal of any change in the circumstances, which can be considered by the Bench before granting extension of stay - There is no change in the circumstances Extension was granted to the Assessee Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for vacation of stay filed by Revenue.
2. Application for extension of stay filed by assessee.
3. Requirement of providing details by assessee as per annexure 'A'.

Analysis:

1. Application for Vacation of Stay:
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking vacation of stay granted to the assessee. The Revenue argued that there was a change in circumstances, indicating a 50% chance of winning the case on merits. The Revenue also claimed that the assessee was not cooperating by providing required details as per annexure 'A'. The Revenue relied on judgments to support its stance. However, the Bench rejected the application as the details sought were not backed by specific legal provisions. The Bench also dismissed the request to block immovable assets, as an unconditional stay had been granted in 2006.

2. Application for Extension of Stay:
The assessee filed an application for extension of stay, contending that there was no change in circumstances since the previous extension granted in August 2012. The Senior Counsel argued that the case did not present new facts warranting vacation of the stay, citing a previous judgment. The Bench, referring to the Larger Bench decision in the case of IPCL, found no change in circumstances and granted the extension for a further six months or until the disposal of appeals, whichever is earlier.

3. Requirement of Providing Details by Assessee:
The miscellaneous application by the Revenue highlighted the assessee's alleged non-cooperation in providing details as per annexure 'A'. The annexure listed various information requirements related to the assessee's financial and asset details. However, the Bench found the request for details lacking legal backing and rejected the application for vacation of stay based on this ground. The Bench emphasized that information not supported by law cannot be a basis for seeking vacation of a stay order issued in 2006.

In conclusion, the Bench allowed the applications for extension of stay while dismissing the Revenue's application for vacation of stay. The decision was based on the absence of significant changes in circumstances and the lack of legal basis for seeking additional details from the assessee.