2013 (11) TMI 747 - HC - Central Excise

Court Limits Recovery Proceedings During Pending Appeals without Stay

M/s Kei Industries Versus UOI. And Others

The court clarified that recovery proceedings should not be initiated when appeals with stay applications are pending, especially if no stay has been ... Hearing of stay application - Recovery proceedings relying upon circular dated 01.01.2013 – Held that:- Following Manglam Cement Limited Vs. The Superintendent, Central Excise Range-III Kota & Ors. [2013 (4) TMI 102 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - the appellate authority/CESTAT was directed to hear and decide the stay application of the petitioner as early as possible but preferably within a period of eight weeks of appearance before the authority - in the meantime, no coercive steps for recovery of the demand shall be initiated – Decided in favour of Petitioner. Issues:1. Interpretation of circular dated 01.01.2013 regarding recovery proceedings in cases where appeals with stay applications are pending.2. Judicial directives for timely hearing and decision on stay applications by appellate authority/CESTAT.3. Prohibition on coercive recovery steps during the pendency of stay applications.Analysis:1. The judgment addressed the interpretation of a circular dated 01.01.2013 concerning the initiation of recovery proceedings in situations where appeals with stay applications are pending. The court referred to a previous decision by a Coordinate Bench, which held that the circular's requirement to initiate recovery proceedings in such cases was not applicable if no stay had been granted due to reasons not attributable to the petitioners. The court directed that no coercive steps for recovery should be taken in such instances, emphasizing the need for timely hearings on appeals and interim applications. The judgment clarified that the court's decision did not comment on the merits of the appeals and instructed the concerned forums to make independent decisions.2. The judgment also discussed a connected petition where the Court directed the appellate authority/CESTAT to hear and decide stay applications promptly, preferably within eight weeks of the petitioner's appearance. During this period, the respondents were restrained from taking coercive recovery actions. The court noted that the counsel for respondents did not dispute the orders passed in this regard. Building on this precedent, the present petition was disposed of with a similar directive to the appellate authority/CESTAT to expedite the hearing and decision on the petitioner's stay application within eight weeks of their appearance.3. In line with the above directives, the court ordered the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority/CESTAT on a specified date, with a requirement for their presence to be recorded in the proceedings. Furthermore, the judgment reiterated the prohibition on initiating coercive recovery measures during the pendency of the stay application, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the specified timelines for decision-making by the appellate authority/CESTAT.