9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the assertion of the Department as regards delivery of notice on 30.10.2019 as the notice was not in requisite Form i.e., ST-4, it is not open for this Court to enter into the question of appeal having been filed beyond the period of limitation and hence permit the recovery. If that were to be so and appeal was presented within the period of limitation, as noticed by the appellate authority, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of prohibition of recovery from the date of institution of appeal which would extend to prohibition of any recovery subsequent to 08.01.2021, which would include prohibition of Citi Bank making payment to the Department Thus, recovery of a sum of ₹ 2,52,85,310/- made as per the Demand Draft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no coercive measures for recovery of the balance amount in excess of 7.5% or 10% deposited in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be taken during the pendency of appeal where the assessee demonstrates proof of payment of 7.5% or 10% as may be applicable and on furnishing copy of the appeal memo. It is further clarified as per paragraph No.4.3 that recovery action could be initiated only after the disposal of the case by the Tribunal. Attention is also drawn to the Circular dated 10.03.2017 at paragraph No.20.2(IV), which reiterates the same position. 4. Relevant portion of Circular dated 16.09.2014 at paragraph No.4.2 is extracted hereinbelow: 4.2 No coercive measures for the recovery of balance amount i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en for recovery of the balance amount during the pendency of the appeal proceedings before these authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the said circulars and noting that the appeal was presented on 08.01.2021 furnishing proof of deposit of 10% as required, question of proceeding further as regards to the demand during the pendency of the appeal does not arise. Attention is also drawn to the order of the Tribunal whereby the appeal has been admitted as per the order dated 25.01.2021, copy of which is produced along with the application for production of additional documents. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the validity of the said circulars. However, it is strenuously contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed beyond the period of limitation and hence permit the recovery. 10. If that were to be so and appeal was presented within the period of limitation, as noticed by the appellate authority, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of prohibition of recovery from the date of institution of appeal which would extend to prohibition of any recovery subsequent to 08.01.2021, which would include prohibition of Citi Bank making payment to the Department 11. In light of the above, taking note that the appeal was presented on 08.01.2021 in Form No.ST-5, copy of which is furnished at Annexure-H2 and noting the deposit made at Sl.No.14, clearly the recovery resorted to of a sum of ₹ 2,52,85,310/- and recovery made by way of a Demand D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
