Disposed

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Central Excise

Telangana HC8 Apr 2013WP/10084/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ petition temporarily. Directing the respondents not to initiate coercive recovery steps for amounts determined in a 2012 order until the pending stay application and appeal before CESTAT are decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to initiate coercive steps for recovery till the stay application is disposed of by CESTAT.

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., Vs The… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.10084 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 08.04.2013

¶5

Between: M/s. Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., .. Petitioner And The Superintendent of Central Excise and 4 others .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.10084 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶9

As against the order of assessment made by the

¶10

3^rd respondent, dated 30.11.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 29.01.2013 before the 4^th respondent (CESTAT) along with an application for stay. The said appeal as well as the stay application are still pending. In the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 26.03.2013 for recovery of the adjudged amounts purportedly on the basis of the circular dated 01.01.2013 issued by the 5^th respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V.Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, the learned Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise.

¶12

It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for both the parties that in similar circumstances, various writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing that no coercive steps should be initiated for recovery of the amount of liability determined against the petitioners therein till the stay petitions were decided by the appellate authorities.

¶13

Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the original order dated 30.11.2012 is admittedly pending before CESTAT, Bangalore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents not to initiate any

¶14

coercive steps for recovery of the amount as determined in the original order dated 30.11.2012, if not already recovered, till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the CESTAT, Bangalore.

¶15

It is made clear that the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by CESTAT, Bangalore without having regard to any of the observations made in this order.

¶16

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶19

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 08.04.2013 ssp/ivd

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ritambara Jalan W/o Shailesh Kumar Jalan, Vs The State Bank of India

Mohd.Ikramul Quadir, Vs State Bank of India

Adapala Ajay Kumar, Vs The Bank of India

Sri K. v. Rayudu, Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s Chebrole Agro Private Ltd., Vs The Asst. Commissioner Customs and Service Tax Range