Court sets aside communication challenging submissions under Central Excise Act during pending appeals

The Court set aside a communication challenging submissions related to the Central Excise Act issued during the pendency of appeals before CESTAT. The communication requested documents related to orders under appeal, which was deemed impermissible under the amended Section 35 of the CE Act. The Court preserved the respondent's right to issue a fresh communication for periods not covered by pending appeals before CESTAT. The writ petition was partly allowed with directions, and no costs were imposed, leading to the closure of the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to communication dated 17.05.2018 regarding submissions related to Central Excise Act, 1944 during pendency of appeals before CESTAT.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner initiated proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period between February 2013 and April 2016, resulting in five original orders. Subsequently, statutory appeals were filed against these orders, which were disposed of by the Appellate Authority on 08.03.2018. Following this, the appeals were further taken to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25.06.2019, where they are currently pending. However, during the pendency of these appeals before CESTAT, a communication dated 17.05.2018 was issued, prompting the writ petition challenging its validity.

The writ petitioner argued that Section 35 of the Central Excise Act was amended on 06.08.2014, eliminating the provision for seeking stay of orders under challenge before CESTAT. Referring to a master circular dated 10.03.2017, the petitioner highlighted paragraph 20.2, emphasizing the mandatory pre-deposit requirements for appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. The impugned communication specifically mentioned the five orders dated 08.03.2018 made by the Appellate Authority, which are currently under consideration by CESTAT.

The Revenue Counsel pointed out that the impugned communication also made reference to a Statement of Demand (SOD) dated 04.07.2018, creating ambiguity regarding its connection to the five original orders. Despite this, the Court noted that the communication's request for documents related to the five orders under appeal contravened the amended provisions of Section 35 of the CE Act, which prohibit such actions during the pendency of appeals before CESTAT. Consequently, the Court set aside the communication in relation to the five orders dated 08.03.2018, preserving the respondent's right to issue a fresh communication if documents are required for periods not covered by the pending appeals before CESTAT.

In conclusion, the writ petition was partly allowed with the specified directions, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, bringing the matter to a resolution.

---