2014 (11) TMI 25 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition for stay of recovery proceedings - coercive action against assessee - Held that - appeal has been filed by the petitioner for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 along with petitions for stay of realization of the demand raised towards interest and the same are pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the petitioner has made certain payments against the demanded amount, besides payment towards pre-deposit, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the opposite parties not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till disposal of the stay petition or appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) whichever is earlier subject to petitioner paying the balance sum in two equal installments - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice for recovery of interest amount.
2. Appeal against levy of interest for multiple years.
3. Request for stay of recovery of interest amount.
4. Dispute over actual liability and reconciliation of payment position.
5. Barred by limitation argument for interest levy.
6. Coercive action by opposite parties.

Analysis:

Challenge to notice for recovery of interest amount:
The Writ Petition sought to quash a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of a substantial interest amount from the petitioner. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus to prevent coercive action until the disposal of the petition.

Appeal against levy of interest for multiple years:
The petitioner, through a Senior Advocate, highlighted appeals filed against interest levied for different years, along with requests for stay of recovery. Pre-deposits were made for certain years, and reconciliation of payment positions was requested for accurate determination of the petitioner's liability.

Request for stay of recovery of interest amount:
The petitioner filed appeals and stay petitions against interest demands, emphasizing the need for a stay of recovery until the appeals are adjudicated. Arguments were made regarding the statutory liability of interest on delayed service tax payments.

Dispute over actual liability and reconciliation of payment position:
There was a discrepancy in the calculation of the interest amount demanded, with the petitioner claiming to have made substantial payments that were not considered. The petitioner sought a fair assessment of their actual liability through reconciliation.

Barred by limitation argument for interest levy:
The petitioner argued that the levy of interest for a specific year was time-barred, presenting a case for restraining coercive action by the opposite parties based on this limitation.

Coercive action by opposite parties:
The Senior Standing Counsel for the Department defended the mandatory nature of interest levies on service tax payments and refuted the petitioner's appeal against the interest amount. The Court directed the opposite parties not to take coercive action pending the appeal's disposal, subject to the petitioner making specified payments in installments.