TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court instructs timely disposal of appeals by Tribunal, prohibits coercive recovery measures</h1> <h3>GLOBAL OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & ST., GUNTUR</h3> GLOBAL OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & ST., GUNTUR - 2012 (280) E.L.T. 170 (A. P.) Issues:- Recovery of Cenvat Credit wrongly availed under Central Excise Act- Delay in disposal of appeals and applications by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate TribunalAnalysis:The writ petition was filed to prevent respondents 1 and 2 from taking coercive steps for the recovery of the amount representing the Cenvat Credit availed wrongly under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner had appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax (Appeals) and filed applications seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement and stay of recovery of tax liability and penalty. The petitioner complained that the Tribunal had not taken up the substantive appeals or applications due to the absence of the Presiding Officer, rendering it dysfunctional. The Tribunal was reported to be functioning, but due to a backlog of cases, it was not addressing the appeals or applications promptly.Considering the circumstances, the High Court directed the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending applications filed by the petitioner along with the appeals. The Tribunal was instructed to complete this process within three months from the date of the court order. If the Tribunal decided not to waive the pre-deposit requirement, the petitioner would need to comply before the Tribunal could address the applications for interim relief. Until the interlocutory applications of the petitioner were resolved, respondents 1 and 2 were prohibited from taking coercive measures against the petitioner for the recovery of the deposited amount.Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the specified directions, emphasizing the need for prompt action by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 