Allowed

M/s Alliance One Industries India Pvt. Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Central Excise

Telangana HC1 Apr 2013WP/9407/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed coercive recovery steps by directing respondent authorities not to initiate recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the appellant's stay application filed before the CESTAT regarding a Service Tax liability.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the determined amount till the stay application is disposed of by CESTAT, Bangalore.

M/s Alliance One Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.9407 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 01.04.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Alliance One Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Guntur.

¶7

.. Petitioner And Superintendent of Central Excise Service Tax Range-II, Guntur District and 4 others.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 9407 OF 2013

¶11

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

¶12

By order dated 30.03.2012, the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kannavarithota, Guntur determined the amount payable by the petitioner towards the Service Tax apart from imposing interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore along with an application for stay and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned letter dated 20.02.2013 demanding payment of the amounts as per the original order dated 30.03.2012 immediately under the threat of coercive steps stating that as per the circular dated 01.01.2013, the proceedings for recovery have to be initiated after 30 days if no stay is granted or after the disposal of the stay petition in accordance with the conditions of stay, if any specified, whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

petitioners therein till the stay petitions were decided by the appellate authorities.

¶16

Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the order dated 30.03.2012 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 coercive steps for recovery of the amount as determined in the original order dated 30.03.2012 till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the CESTAT, Bangalore.

¶17

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.

¶18

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

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

¶20

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶21

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 01.04.2013 KLP

M/s Alliance One Industries India Pvt. Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Alliance One Industries India Pvt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s East Coast Engineering Company, Vs Government of India

M/s. Ncs Industries Private Ltd., Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary

M.Siva Prasad, Vs Government of India.

M/s. Mahalakshmi Travels, Vs Union of India

Doshi Gems and Jewellers Private Limited, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shri Tummala Mural Krishna, Vs Union of India