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 Halts Coercive Actions, Upholds Fairness. Stay Petition Resolved, Petitioner's Rights Protected.</h1> <h3>KG. DENIM LIMITED Versus CESTAT, CHENNAI</h3> KG. DENIM LIMITED Versus CESTAT, CHENNAI - 2014 (301) E.L.T. 232 (Mad.) Issues:1. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus directing the release of duty drawback amounts.2. Appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. 3 of 2011 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.3. Delay in functioning of the Appellate Tribunal due to lack of quorum.4. Coercive actions by the second respondent during the Tribunal's non-sitting period.Analysis:1. The petitioner, K.G. Denim Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the duty drawback amounts withheld without legal authority. The petitioner also requested a stay on any recovery proceedings until the disposal of a stay petition filed earlier. The High Court heard arguments from both parties and decided to take up the writ petition for final disposal.2. The petitioner had appealed against Order-in-Original No. 3 of 2011 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. However, the Tribunal had not been functioning due to a lack of quorum, preventing the petitioner from having a fair hearing. Concerns were raised that the second respondent was pressuring the petitioner to pay the confirmed demand during this period of non-sitting of the Tribunal.3. The counsel for the second respondent assured the Court that the vacancies in the Tribunal would soon be filled, and the Tribunal would resume its operations. Despite this assurance, the High Court acknowledged the current vacancy in the Tribunal and the coercive actions taken by the second respondent during this period. As a result, the Court directed the second respondent to refrain from taking any coercive steps until the stay petition was resolved.4. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the second respondent to halt coercive actions. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed without any costs imposed. The judgment aimed to ensure fairness and procedural justice for the petitioner amid the delay in the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal.
TaxTMI 