2015 (1) TMI 628 - HC - Central Excise

Court reduces duty demand & penalties, directs Tribunal to expedite recall application.

KEYMEN LAMINATORS PVT. LTD. Versus CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

The Court reduced the duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the petitioner. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, ... Clandestine removal of goods - Imposition of penalty - petitioner filed a recall application before the Tribunal stating that though the petitioner had no notice of the hearing before the Tribunal - The restoration application is pending - In the meantime, the Assistant Commissioner by an order issued directions for the detention of certain goods of the petitioner for the recovery of the outstanding dues - Held that:- There can be no objection to a direction that the recall application should be disposed of, one way or the other. However, the petitioner in our view, cannot claim a stay on the recovery proceedings merely because a recall application has been filed. Whether or not, the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the Tribunal for sufficient cause is a matter to be decided by the Tribunal itself and this Court cannot issue any direction as sought. Hence, we only direct, at this stage that the Tribunal may make all endevours to dispose of the recall application expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any recovery made in the meantime, shall necessarily abide by the final result of the proceedings before the Tribunal. This, however, will not prevent the petitioner from applying before the Tribunal for such relief as is considered necessary. - Petition disposed of. Issues:1. Confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Appeal filed by the Revenue and subsequent Tribunal's order.3. Filing of recall application by the petitioner before the Tribunal.4. Stay on recovery proceedings requested by the petitioner.5. Court's direction on the disposal of the recall application and recovery proceedings.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the initial confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the petitioner. The duty demand was reduced from &8377; 17,90,434/- to &8377; 61,947/-, and penalties were also reduced. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, leading to the current situation.2. The petitioner filed a recall application before the Tribunal due to unavoidable circumstances preventing their presence during the hearing. The Tribunal's restoration application is pending, and the Assistant Commissioner issued directions for detaining goods for outstanding dues recovery.3. The petitioner sought a stay on recovery proceedings until the recall application is expedited. The Court acknowledged the need for the recall application's prompt disposal but clarified that the petitioner cannot automatically claim a stay on recovery proceedings solely based on the application's filing.4. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the recall application within two months and stated that any recovery made should align with the final Tribunal decision. The petitioner was allowed to seek further relief from the Tribunal as deemed necessary, emphasizing that the ongoing recovery should not hinder the petitioner's rights.5. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with the Court's directive focusing on expediting the recall application, ensuring recovery proceedings align with the Tribunal's decision, and allowing the petitioner to pursue additional relief through the Tribunal as required.