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>Interim Stay Granted with Payment Conditions for Duty Liability</h1> <h3>NICCO CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The court granted an interim stay against coercive recovery of the penalty based on certificates from the Warship Production Superintendent but required ... Stay - Appeal against the duty liability exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The appellant already deposited exceeding Rs.50 lakhs. It is submitted that the appellant company is running into losses and is unable to pay the balance duty. Certificates produced indicating supplies in the nature of ship stores for Indian navy. Held that - appellant not entitled to unconditional stay of duty amount. Appellant directed to pay 25% towards duty liability after taking amount paid already into account. Issues:1. Application for stay against coercive recovery of balance duty amount and penalty.2. Justification for granting stay based on certificates issued by Warship Production Superintendent.3. Opposing application citing precedent from the Apex Court.4. Determining the entitlement of the appellant for unconditional stay against recovery of duty amount.5. Conditions imposed for granting interim stay.6. Disposal of the stay application.7. Filing of requisite paper book by the appellant.8. Service of notice of appeal and provision of certified copy of the order.Analysis:1. The appellant sought a stay against coercive recovery of the balance duty amount and penalty, claiming financial constraints due to running losses. The appellant had paid a portion of the duty liability and relied on certificates from the Warship Production Superintendent to support their case.2. The certificates issued by the Warship Production Superintendent were considered in determining the justification for granting a stay against coercive recovery. While these certificates could support the stay against penalty recovery, the court found the appellant not entitled to an unconditional stay for the duty amount.3. The respondent opposed the application, citing a precedent from the Apex Court, Leader Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, to argue against the appellant's claim for a stay.4. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court decided that the appellant should pay a further 25% of the duty liability in cash within two months and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining 25% within one month to maintain the interim stay. Failure to comply would result in the vacation of the stay without further reference to the court.5. The court disposed of the stay application based on the conditions imposed for the appellant to fulfill to maintain the interim stay, balancing the interests of justice with the appellant's financial situation.6. Additionally, the appellant was directed to file the requisite number of paper books within three months from the date of the judgment to proceed further with the case.7. Service of notice of appeal was waived for respondent No. 1, represented by its advocate, Mr. Bharadwaj, while it was required for other non-appearing respondents to be informed about the appeal.8. The judgment concluded by allowing the provision of an urgent certified copy of the order upon application, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities for the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
