2008 (12) TMI 421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M.G. Varadarajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Poorna Chandra Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. - This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the appellant for lifting the detention. The learned advocate informed the Bench that the Stay Petition Nos. E/Stay/650 & 651/2008 have been listed for hearing by this Bench on 18-2-2009. In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anual. He particularly referred to Part 3, Chapter 18 - Recovery of Dues at paras 1.3 - 1.4. The said instructions are quoted below. 1.3 If the stay application is filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand, no coercive action should be taken to realize the dues till the disposal of the stay application by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) or t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. 3. However, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. v. UOI - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 301 (Raj.) took a different view. The Additional Commissioner relying on the Circular dated 2-6-1998 took coercive action when the stay application/appeal was pending before the CEGAT on the ground that the 1998 instructions refer only to the stay pending before Commissioner (Appeal)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the stay application is listed for hearing in the month of February 2009, he ought not to have detained the goods and adjusted the balance available in Cenvat credit and PLA. This is highly deplorable. Even the instructions given in Para 1.3 quoted above do not stand the test of reason in the light of Rajasthan High Court's decision. The learned advocate states that as a result of this action of t....