Disposed

Ultratech Cement Ltd., v. Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary

Telangana HC5 Nov 2012WP/34376/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner against a letter directing remittance of CENVAT credit. The court admitted the petition and directed the authorities not to initiate coercive recovery steps pending the outcome of the stay application filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount determined by the Order in Original dated 31.10.2011 pending disposal of the stay application by CESTAT.

Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs Union Of India, Represented… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34376 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶4

Aggrieved by the letter dated 23.10.2012 (erroneously typed as 23.12.2012) issued by the third respondent calling upon the petitioner to remit the determined amount of irregularly availed cenvat credit, the interest thereon and the penalty, as stipulated in the Order in Original No.16/2011(C.Ex.) dated 31.10.2011 passed by the second respondent, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶5

Against the Order in Original, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘CESTAT’) on 13.02.2012 along with an application seeking stay of payment, pending disposal of the appeal.

¶6

It is pleaded and asserted at the Bar that the hearing of the stay application was scheduled on 16.08.2012, on which date the Tribunal could not take up the matter. The matter was again adjourned to 01.11.2012. On 01.11.2012, however, the Tribunal did not convene and the stay application of the petitioner stands adjourned to a further date, for consideration. In the meanwhile, the impugned letter is issued by the third respondent. The limited relief sought by the petitioner is for a direction to the third respondent not to initiate any coercive measures for collection of the liability determined by the Order in Original dated 31.10.2011 passed by the second respondent, pending disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal on 13.02.2012 before the CESTAT, Bangalore.

¶7

In the facts and circumstances and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel-Sri J.Satyaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission

¶8

directing the respondents in particular, the third respondent not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount of liability determined by the Order in Original dated 31.10.2011 passed by the second respondent, until disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioner (along with appeal dated 13.02.2012 before the CESTAT, Bangalore), by the CESTAT. None of the observations in this order shall however be construed as expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s case either in the application for interim relief pending consideration before the CESTAT, Bangalore or in the substantive appeal. The liability of the petitioner to remit the amount determined by the Order in Original dated 31.10.2011, shall abide by the order of the CESTAT, Bangalore either in the petitioner’s application for interim relief or in the substantive appeal, as the case may be. No costs.

¶9

_______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶10

____________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶11

05^th November 2012 DR

Ultratech Cement Ltd., v. Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ultratech Cement Ltd., v. Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-Iii Vs M/s. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi Vs M/S Shri Gautam Gupta

Smt. R. Pramila Bai Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Kola Venkata Raju, Vs Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

M/s. Elite Engineers, a partnership firm Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Commission

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Agricultural Market Committee