https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251449 A recovery demand based on a circular already declared non est for cases where appeals and stay applications were pending without fault of the assessee could not be enforced by coercive recovery. The Court found the impugned notice relied on the very same circular despite the prior binding determination, and treated that reliance as prima facie disobedience of its earlier order. Interim protection was therefore granted by staying the demand notice and preserving the status quo against recovery, while contempt notice was directed against the concerned officer. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251449 A recovery demand based on a circular already declared non est for cases where appeals and stay applications were pending without fault of the assessee could not be enforced by coercive recovery. The Court found the impugned notice relied on the very same circular despite the prior binding determination, and treated that reliance as prima facie disobedience of its earlier order. Interim protection was therefore granted by staying the demand notice and preserving the status quo against recovery, while contempt notice was directed against the concerned officer. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251449