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>Court rules in favor of petitioner, emphasizing fairness in recovery actions during stay applications.</h1> <h3>SHREE CEMENT LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Circular dated 2-3-1990, providing general guidelines for recovery officers during the ... Recovery of Government - Departmental circulars Issues Involved: The judgment deals with the issue of recovery of dues during the pendency of stay applications before different appellate authorities, specifically focusing on the conflicting guidelines provided in Circulars dated 2-3-1990 and 2-6-1998 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.Summary:Circulars Conflict: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice issued during the pendency of a stay application before the CEGAT. The dispute arose due to conflicting guidelines in Circulars dated 2-3-1990 and 2-6-1998. The petitioner argued that the general directions in the earlier Circular should prevail over the specific directions in the later Circular.Analysis of Circulars: The Court analyzed the content and context of both Circulars. It noted that the Circular dated 2-3-1990 provided general guidelines for recovery officers during the pendency of stay petitions before higher forums, emphasizing fairness and justice in not proceeding with recovery while stay applications are pending. This Circular was based on the acceptance of principles laid down by the Bombay High Court.Specific vs. General Guidelines: The Court observed that the Circular dated 2-6-1998, while specific to recovery during appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), did not supersede the general principle of not resorting to coercive measures during the pendency of stay applications, as outlined in the earlier Circular. The specific guidelines for the Commissioner (Appeals) did not negate the general directive for all recovery officers.Decision and Ruling: Ultimately, the Court held that the Circular dated 2-3-1990 applied to all Central Excise Officers, directing them to refrain from coercive recovery actions during the pendency of stay petitions before the CEGAT. The recovery notice issued to the petitioner was quashed, emphasizing the binding nature of the general guidelines over specific instructions. The writ petition was allowed, and the challenged Circulars were set aside with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
