2001 (4) TMI 95 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of recovery of dues during the pendency of stay applications before different appellate authorities, specifically focusing on the conflicting guidelines provided in Circulars dated 2-3-1990 and 2-6-1998 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.

Summary:

Circulars Conflict:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice issued during the pendency of a stay application before the CEGAT. The dispute arose due to conflicting guidelines in Circulars dated 2-3-1990 and 2-6-1998. The petitioner argued that the general directions in the earlier Circular should prevail over the specific directions in the later Circular.

Analysis of Circulars:
The Court analyzed the content and context of both Circulars. It noted that the Circular dated 2-3-1990 provided general guidelines for recovery officers during the pendency of stay petitions before higher forums, emphasizing fairness and justice in not proceeding with recovery while stay applications are pending. This Circular was based on the acceptance of principles laid down by the Bombay High Court.

Specific vs. General Guidelines:
The Court observed that the Circular dated 2-6-1998, while specific to recovery during appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), did not supersede the general principle of not resorting to coercive measures during the pendency of stay applications, as outlined in the earlier Circular. The specific guidelines for the Commissioner (Appeals) did not negate the general directive for all recovery officers.

Decision and Ruling:
Ultimately, the Court held that the Circular dated 2-3-1990 applied to all Central Excise Officers, directing them to refrain from coercive recovery actions during the pendency of stay petitions before the CEGAT. The recovery notice issued to the petitioner was quashed, emphasizing the binding nature of the general guidelines over specific instructions. The writ petition was allowed, and the challenged Circulars were set aside with no costs imposed.