Allowed

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs

Telangana HC21 Feb 2013WP/5216/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court restrained the respondents from recovering disputed penalty amounts from the petitioner pending the disposal of its stay application before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore. The court observed that a vacancy in the Tribunal caused a delay and that recovery would render the pending appeal infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are restrained from making recovery of the disputed amount of penalty from the petitioner pending consideration of its stay application before the CESTAT, Bangalore.

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

WP No.5216 of 2013

¶4

ORDER

¶5

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

¶6

Heard Sri Ch.Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

2. The petitioner had been assessed to excise duty and penalty by order in original No.62/2003 dt.15-12-2003 by the 2^nd respondent which were confirmed in appeal No.E/240/06 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘CESTAT’) by order dt.17-06-2011. Petitioner had filed CEA before this Court as CEASR No.1565 of 2012 which is said to be pending.

¶8

3. In the meantime by order in original No.03/2012-CEHyd-III.Adjn (D) (Commnr) dt.27-02-2012, the petitioner was assessed to penalty by the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

4. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed Appeal No.E/25137/2013 along with stay application No.E/Stay/25107/2013 before the CESTAT. In the mean time, the 3^rd respondent issued a demand notice dt.31-01-2013 based on a circular dt.01-01-2013 of the 1^st respondent directing the petitioner to pay the amounts determined in the above order in original No.03/2012 dt.27-02-2012.

¶10

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the CESTAT at Bangalore is not functioning on account of a vacancy of the

¶11

office of the technical member and is unable to take up the application of the petitioner for stay of recovery of the amounts determined in the above order in original; that if the petitioner is compelled to pay the disputed amounts pending disposal of the stay application by the CESTAT, its appeal would be rendered infructuous.

¶12

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed that there was, for a considerable time, a vacancy in the office of technical member in the Tribunal, but pointed out that recently the said vacancy has been filled up.

¶13

7. In view of the fact that there was a vacancy for considerable time in the CESTAT, Bangalore on account of absence of a technical member; and it was not functioning till very recently for that reason; although a new member is appointed to fill the said vacancy, it would still take time for it to deal with all the pending stay applications in the appeals which have been filed before it since the said vacancy arose, we are of the view that interests of justice would be met if the respondents are restrained from making recovery of the disputed amount of penalty from the petitioner, pending consideration of it’s stay application in the appeal preferred by it before the CESTAT, Bangalore which is pending.

¶14

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶15

____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶16

Date :21-02-2013

¶17

___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶18

kvr

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs

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

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Government of India

The State of a.P., Vs M/s. Shanmukha Traders

M/s.Ivrcl - Navayuga - Sew (Jv), Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary

M/s. B.F.G. International Private Limited Vs The State

Spectra Shares and Scripts Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii

The State of a.P..S.T.a.T.Hyd. Vs Prompt Packing (Pvt)Ltd.Rr Dist.