Remanded

M/ s. Penna Cement Industriies Ltd, v. The Union of India

Telangana HC6 Feb 2013WP/3211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of four writ petitions regarding pending applications in the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench. Due to the Tribunal's non-functioning due to a vacancy, the High Court restrained revenue authorities from initiating coercive recovery measures, interest, or penalties pending the Tribunal's decision on waiver of pre-deposit and stay applications.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to initiate any coercive measures for recovery of Central Excise liability or Service Tax, interest and penalties pending disposal of petitioners' applications for waiver of p

M/ s. Penna Cement Industriies Ltd, Vs The Union of… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

W.P.3211/2013,W.P.NO.3502/2013,W.P.NO.3504/2013, W.P.NO.3544/2013

¶3

COMMON ORDER : (Per MSR J):

¶4

Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners and

¶5

Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Sri Gopalakrishna Gokhale and Sri Bathula Rajkiran, learned Standing counsel for the several respondents in the several writ petitions.

¶6

As the core of the grievances presented in these writ petitions falls within a narrow compass in so far as the judicial review is concerned and shares a common characteristic, we dispose of the several writ petitions by this common order.

¶7

Orders-in-Original were passed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or for levy and collection of Service Tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 against the several petitioners. Aggrieved by the Orders in Original, further appeals were preferred to the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶8

Along with the respective appeals, petitioners preferred applications for waiver of the pre-deposit and applications for stay of tax as determined by the Orders-in-Original . It is the common refrain in the writ petitions, reiterated in oral argument by the several learned counsel that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal is not functioning on account of a vacancy in the office of the Technical Member; and the Tribunal is unable therefore to take up the petitioners applications for waiver for pre-deposit and for grant of stay of levy of the tax, interest and penalties, as the case may be. In all the writ petitions a Circular dated 1-1-2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi has been challenged, whereunder a generic directive is issued to Revenue to initiate recovery proceedings 30 days after filing of the appeal, if no stay were granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners however do not wish to pursue the

¶9

challenge to the Circular in these writ petitions and are satisfied if this Court were to dispose of the writ petitions directing Revenue not to initiate coercive measures till the Tribunal takes up and disposes of the applications preferred by them, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the applications for grant of stay of collection of the Cenvat credit wrongly availed allegedly, Excise duty or Service Tax, interest and penalties, as determined, by the Ordersin-Original .

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and in the context of the current ineffectual functioning of the Tribunal, a fact not disputed by the Revenue, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions directing the respondents not to initiate any coercive measures for recovery of the Central Excise liability or Service Tax liability or interest and penalties, as the case may be, as assessed in the Orders-in-Original pending disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit and wherever filed, the applications for stay of collection of the Central Excise or Service Tax, interest and penalties, as the case may be. The liability of the petitioners to remit the tax, interest and penalties, as assessed or confirmed, as the case may be, shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Tribunal in the interlocutory applications preferred by the petitioners.

¶11

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. But in the circumstances without costs.

¶12

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶14

Dt: 6-2-2013 kk

¶15

HON’BLE JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶16

HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶17

W.P.3211/2013,W.P.NO.3502/2013,W.P.NO.3504/2013, W.P.NO.3544/2013

¶18

6-202013

M/ s. Penna Cement Industriies Ltd, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/ s. Penna Cement Industriies Ltd, v. The Union of India

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

M/s. Regal Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Vs The Additional Commissioner (Ct) (Legal)

M/s. The India Cements Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

M/s. Aditya Engineers and Technicians Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) - Audit

M/s. Donthala Purnachanra Rao Civil Contractor, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Bharathi Industries, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii

M/s.Kavya Granites, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii