2014 (11) TMI 913 - HC - Central Excise

Court halts recovery pending revision, directs no further recovery, instructs timely revision adjudication

The Court granted relief to the petitioner by halting the recovery process pending the revision application and directed the respondents not to make any ... Challenge to recovery proceedings - Coercive measures of recovery - Held that:- At the outset, it needs to be stated that we have not gone into merits of the case of either side and our indulgence is restricted only in respect of the request of the petitioner seeking to recover the amount confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) pending the revision when revisional authority is yet to examine its request of stay of order sought to be executed. When admittedly, revisional authority is already approached by the petitioner challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) raising various grounds and when the said authority is unable to take up the request of stay of recovery pursuant to appellate orders in absence of any attempt on the part of the petitioner to thwart hearing of such application of stay as also proceeding with hearing of revision on merit, actions of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 warrant interference at this stage - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Challenge to recovery action pending revision application and stay application before Revisional Authority.In this case, the petitioner challenged the respondent's action of recovering the amount confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while the revision application and stay application were pending before the Revisional Authority. The petitioner argued that despite a favorable prospect on merit, coercive recovery was initiated. The Court noted that the Revisional Authority had been approached by the petitioner, but the stay application was not being considered promptly. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the petitioner's request to halt the recovery pending the revisional authority's decision on the stay application.The Court observed that since the Revisional Authority had not expedited the stay application due to the petitioner's lack of effort to facilitate the process, the actions of the respondents warranted interference. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, granting protection to the petitioner during the pendency of the revision and directing the respondents not to make any recovery based on the Appellate orders until the Revisional Authority's decision. Additionally, the Revisional Authority was instructed to complete the hearing and adjudication of the revision within three months, with the petitioner required to cooperate and not obstruct the process. The petitioner was mandated to serve a copy of the order to the Revisional Authority by a specified date.In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition to the extent of providing relief to the petitioner by halting the recovery process pending the revision application and ensuring a timely adjudication by the Revisional Authority.