2014 (2) TMI 1304 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Government circular for recovery of dues upheld despite petitioner's challenge; existing authority emphasized.

Lumbini Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Court upheld the validity of the circular issued by the Government of India regarding the recovery of outstanding dues, despite challenges raised by ... Recovery of outstanding dues of the Government of India - Circular dated 1st January, 2013 issued by the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi - Held that: - the petitioner having lost before this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court having not granted stay pending the appeal, necessary legal consequences would be recovery of the outstanding dues. The power can legitimately be exercised irrespective of the impugned circular - it is incorrect to hold the circular to be arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of any fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner or any other party - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues: Challenge to Circular on Recovery of Outstanding DuesAnalysis:The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a circular issued by the Government of India regarding the recovery of outstanding dues. The petitioner argued that the circular was invalid as there were no rules supporting its issuance. Reference was made to judgments from the Rajasthan High Court and the Bombay High Court which had set aside similar circulars. However, the Court disagreed with the Rajasthan High Court's view and upheld the validity of the impugned circular.The Court explained that the circular simply outlined the legal consequences when a challenge to a demand had been rejected, and it aimed to ensure uniform action by all officers across the country. The circular did not grant new powers but clarified the existing legal position regarding recovery in cases where demands had been confirmed, and no stay had been granted on appeal. The Court emphasized that even without the circular, authorities would be justified in making recoveries under such circumstances.In the specific case before the Court, since the petitioner had lost in the lower court and no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court pending appeal, the recovery of outstanding dues was deemed necessary. The Court concluded that the power to recover dues existed independently of the circular, and the circular itself was not found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of any fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner or others. Consequently, the petition was dismissed summarily.