2014 (5) TMI 462 - HC - Service Tax

Contempt proceedings initiated against officers for issuing demand notices declared non-est by Court

Fashion Suitings Pvt. Ltd. and others Versus The Superintendent, CE. & ST., & Ors.

The Court addressed the issuance of demand notices by Central Excise Officers based on a circular declared non-est, leading to pending appeals and stay ... Demand of service tax - Coercive measures taken for recovery - SCN Issued pursuant to Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 01.01.2013 - Held that:- Court was forced to express rather its dismay that the respondents, with impunity, were issuing such demand notices with reference to the very same Circular, despite the same having been declared non-est - prima facie, the demand notices as issued in these cases were considered to be the show of total disrespect to and defiance of the order passed by this Court when the legal position had been concluded by this Court long back; and, in no uncertain terms, the impugned Circular had been declared non-est. Hence, while admitting these petitions and while staying the operation, effect and execution of the impugned demand notices, separate suo motu contempt petitions were ordered to be registered against the officers concerned. Now the respondents do admit that coercive recovery against the writ-petitioners is not pursued and specific Circular has been issued by the Commissioner of Excise in this regard. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that while accepting the explanation and unconditional apology tendered on behalf of the respondents, these matters deserve to be closed and need not be proceeded further - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Issuance of demand notices based on a circular declared non-est by the Court.2. Pending appeals and stay applications before CESTAT.3. Disrespect and defiance of Court orders by issuing demand notices.4. Contempt proceedings against officers for issuing demand notices.5. Apology and explanation by officers for issuing demand notices.6. Withdrawal of demand notices and corrective actions taken by officers.7. Quashing of demand notices and closure of proceedings.Analysis:1. The petitioners filed writ petitions due to demand notices issued by Central Excise Officers based on a circular declared non-est by the Court. The appeals and stay applications filed by the petitioners before CESTAT were pending, leading to the issuance of demand notices despite the circular being invalidated. The Court expressed dismay at the officers issuing demand notices in violation of the Court's order.2. The Court considered the pending appeals and stay applications before CESTAT, emphasizing the need for the matters to be heard promptly. Reference was made to a Co-ordinate Bench decision directing the authorities to ensure the hearing of such appeals and interim applications expeditiously. The Court allowed the petitions to the extent indicated and ordered no coercive steps for recovery against the petitioners.3. The Court observed that the demand notices showed disrespect and defiance of the Court's order declaring the circular non-est. Separate contempt petitions were ordered against the officers responsible for issuing the demand notices. The Court stayed the operation of the demand notices and initiated contempt proceedings against the officers.4. Following the contempt proceedings, the contemnors filed replies, tendering unconditional apologies and explaining the circumstances leading to the issuance of demand notices. The officers cited lack of specific knowledge regarding the Court's decision and subsequent directions from the Commissioner of Central Excise not to initiate coercive recovery against petitioners with pending appeals.5. The contemnors admitted their fault in issuing the demand notices and took corrective actions, including withdrawing demand notices and releasing accounts. The officers assured that coercive recovery against the petitioners was not pursued, and specific Circulars were issued to prevent such actions in the future.6. The Court acknowledged the explanations and apologies tendered by the officers, noting the corrective measures taken to rectify the situation. Considering the circumstances, the Court decided to close the matters, quashing the demand notices and discontinuing further proceedings, including contempt petitions.7. The Court quashed the demand notices, clarified that its observations would not impact the merit consideration of the appeals/stay applications, and disposed of the writ petitions. The proceedings in the Contempt Petitions were dropped, and notices were discharged, bringing the case to a conclusion.