High Court
Case Details
SSsSS^-^SeJ^'SSsS^^aS-S-ssyy^'^^ t.'.&tlb ie 4JBDS.IUB443 joj sjnieoipnc ^o 1^003 qbiH 3|q,uoH aqt ( ^o ssopnc uoiuediuoo SIH pue aa.qsnc 13143 aqi 3|q,uoH :ajojaa •Jinaseiig TOO OTT - !4|3Q MSN 'UBLUjieqo '>|3o|g 44JON anusAsy jo luaiuijedaa si! qBnojq} 'siuo4sn3 ig sspxg }Q pjeog IBJIUS^ (9'3) -ind]ey 'ii- 36uey asjoxg |ejius3 'iuspusiuusdns siji ('3"3) jndiey ejedej>|!i 'peoy ueiujeqa 'SLuo}sn3 9S]3xg 'ueMGLig lejiua^ 'JSUOISSILULUOQ aqi TOO OTT - !4|3Q M3N >|30|g 'aDueuy pue 3313x3 |eJlU33 'snusAsy qiJON JO AJISJUIM 'AJB43J39S S}1 j0 lUSLUijedsa 'BjpUI •fr •£ y•z ^O UOJU)^- •T :siuapuoassi^ \\^.^ ~~ iejei upued '9-9 'V-9 'ON iey ^ (•3-3) jndiey'peoy '>|30]g snsjSA •Z«-col -fAS ^•zl '< lujqow 'jeqiA asjqsAef uj|jaw o/y '•p4-| s|331S 18 JSMOd ReMBeqg S/M - JOIOSJIQ BuiBeuBM 'sjesA '|eMu.[3» jEi|p!]jnM uqs sie"! '|8Mu[3>| jBLun>|fey •JM 'g-9 zs inoqe ps6e jejei ypued /3-3) jndiey 'peoy '>|30|g ]U!qoM iey ''V-9 "ON 'jeq]A ssjijsAer '|eMu.fe» zs }noqe pa6e ui|j3W o/y 'sjesA j@qp]|jnM uqs SIB~I o/s '|eMyf3» jeujn>|l'ey 'L|BnojL|i •JW J0133JIQ BuiBeuBM s}! '('3'3) Jndiey 'n-aseqd 'eje}|!S- SBB||JA }e AjopBj S4j 6u]Aeq '9S6T 'l^V ssiuedujoo AueduJOD sqi jspun p3}ejodj03ui '•p4-| s|39is 18 Jawod iiBMBeqa •s/i4-| 1<>. e is.iauonnag -'ON-CT7u°RlT3dlPM ETOZ^o ^s yndsvTTa IVTIIIV&SIII^HH^JO i^inoa HOIH 3HiNi e^' r$5
Legal Reasoning
D.B.: HON'BLE MR. SUN1L KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE MR. RANCNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ. W.P.mNo. 18/2013 PETITIONERS M/s. Topworth Steels and Power Private Limited & Another. RESPONDENTS Union of India & Others. ir'ersus ^Arisina out of Appeal No. 2683/2011 pendinn before the Customs. Excise and Service Tax Appe'late Triburp'. New Delhi^ W.P.mNo. 1£/7013 PETITIONERS M/s. SKS Ispat Lin-iitsd & Another. RESPONDENTS Union of India & OLhers. Versus rArisina out ofAppeals No. 67/2012. 66/2012.150/2012. 149/2012. 181/2012 & 193/2012 pendina before Commissioner Apoeals. Raipurt W.P. m No. 23/2013 PETITIONERS M/s Hira Power & Steels Limited & Another. RESPONDENTS Union of India & Others. Versus r y fArisinqoutofADpeal No. 204/2012 DendinabeforetheCommissionerAppeals. 'Central Excise) ~s W.P.mNo. 26/2013 i PETITIONERS M/s. Devi Another. Iron & Power Pvt. Limited & RESPONDENTS Union of India & Others. Versus ^ (Arisina out Appeal No. E/3849/2010-&( and E/3504/2012-Ex pendina before the Customs. Excise and Service Tax Apoellate Tribunal. and Appeal No. 130/2012 pendina before the Commissioner (ADpeals^ AND W.P.mNo. 35/2013 PETITIONERS" M/s. Bhagwati Power & Steels Ltd. & Another. RESPQNDENTS Union of India & Others. Versus ^Arisina out of an Appeat aaainst order in Oriainal No. COMMISSIONER/RPR/CEX/110/2012 dated 30/11/2012 pendina before Customs. Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. New Delhi) WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. fT) Nos. 18/2013, 19/2013,23/2013 & 2620/13. Mr. Bhaskar Pyashi, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. (T) No. 35/S Mr. Gary Mukhopadhya, Advocate for the Respondent/ AuthoritieS"' Central Excise Department in W.P. (T) Nos. 18/2013,19/2013 & 23/2013. Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent/ Authorities of the Central Excise Department in W.P. fT) Nos. 26/2013 & 35/2013. Heard.
Decision
ORDER (06/05/2013) The Petitioners, in all writ petitiohs, have challenged the validity of circular no. 967/01/2013-CX dated 01/01/2013 (Annexure-P-4 in W.P. (T) No.18/2013) and have also challenged the demand notices/recoveries issued against them. It appears that after assessment of the Central Excise Taxes to be paid by the Petitioners, the Petitioners have challenged the said orders before the Appeltate Authorities and their appeals are pending before them. The Petitioners have also filed applications for waiver or pre-deposit in the Appeals, but the said applications, according to learned counsel for the Petitioners, have not been disposed of till now. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have submitted that on one hand, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit are not being disposed of by the Appellate Authonties for no fault of the petitioners and on the other hand, the Department is issuing notices for demand on the basis of assessment orders, which are sub-judice before th6 concem Authorities. They have submitted that on account of interim orders already granted in favour of the Petitioners, presently recovery proceedings are stayed, therefore, for the present they are not pressing the relief of challenging the vires of the cireular and the petitions may be disposed of by making the interim orders absolute and by issuing necessary directions to the Appellate Authorities to dispose of the applications for waiver of pre-deposit at an eariy date. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Authorities of Central Excise also submitted that these writ petitions may be disposed of with a direction to the concern Authorities to dispose ofthe waiver applications at an early date. We have heard counsel for the parties. A perusal of the records of the writ petitions would show that almost in all the cases, this Court has passed a similar interim order against the recovery issued against the Petitioners. For better reference, we may quote the operative portion of the interim order dated 18/02/2013 passedin W.P. (T) No. 18/2013. "Ttll the application for exemption for pre-deposit is decided by the Tribunal, the recovery against the petitioners in respect of iremain stayed. pending appeal shall is also The Tribunal directed to decide the application of exemption for pre-deposit expeditiously. CHIEF JUSTICE the petitioners for i JUDGE In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and particulariy in view of the fact that applications for waiver or pre-deposit are pending before the cohcern Appellate Authorities, we dispose of these writ petitions with the directions that the concem Authorities shall try to dispose of the pending apptications in the respective appeals as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 rngnl from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with an application for urgent hearing, which may be preferred by either ofthe parties. The interim" orders passed by this Court in respective writ petitions on different dates are made absolute and it is directed that recovery against the petitipners in the above matters shall remain stayed and no coercive steps shall be taken against them for a period of 4 % months from today or till the apptications for waiver of pre-deposit are disposed of by the Appetlate Authorities, which ever is eariier. With the above observations/directions, the writ petitions stand finally disposed of. Cost is made easy. sd/- -.. Sunil Kumar Judge Sd/- R. N. Chandrakar ludge