9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain terms, the impugned Circular had been declared non-est. Hence, while admitting these petitions and while staying the operation, effect and execution of the impugned demand notices, separate suo motu contempt petitions were ordered to be registered against the officers concerned. Now the respondents do admit that coercive recovery against the writ-petitioners is not pursued and specific Circular has been issued by the Commissioner of Excise in this regard. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that while accepting the explanation and unconditional apology tendered on behalf of the respondents, these matters deserve to be closed and need not be proceeded further - Decided in favour of assessee. - D.B. Civil Writ Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular had been prohibited while directing the respondents to ensure hearing of the appeals and interim applications at the earliest. The decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in DBCWP No. 1891/2013 : Manglam Cement Ltd. Vs. The superintendent, Central Excise Range-II, Kota Ors. was also referred. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-assessees, this Court was forced to express rather its dismay that the respondents, with impunity, were issuing such demand notices with reference to the very same Circular, despite the same having been declared non-est. In CWP No. 13775/2013, it was additionally noticed that even a representation made by the petitioner-assessee was rejected with reference to the very same Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions were disposed of following the said decision in Manglam Cement Ltd. (supra). In the totality of circumstances, prima facie, the demand notices as issued in these cases were considered to be the show of total disrespect to and defiance of the order passed by this Court when the legal position had been concluded by this Court long back; and, in no uncertain terms, the impugned Circular had been declared non-est. Hence, while admitting these petitions and while staying the operation, effect and execution of the impugned demand notices, separate suo motu contempt petitions were ordered to be registered against the officers concerned. Pursuant to the order so passed in the respective writ petitions, Contempt Petition Nos. 631/2013 and 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt by the letter dated 14.10.2013; and further that the amount of Rs. 1,98,256/- forwarded by SBBJ, Badgaon Branch, Udaipur had not been deposited in the Government Account and the cheque lying with the Department has also been returned. Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents/contemnors, we find that albeit late, the respondents have seen reasons and have corrected the faults in their conduct, of having issued the impugned demand notices directly at conflict with the writ issued by this Court. Now the respondents do admit that coercive recovery against the writ-petitioners is not pursued and specific Circular has been issued by the Commissioner of Excise in this regard. In the totality of the circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
