2015 (12) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking coercive recovery measures against the petitioner. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is resident of Faridabad. He is at present non working Director of M/s Spectec Building Products Pvt. Limited. The company is engaged in the manufacture of false roofing sheet/metal sheets falling under Chapter heading 72104100 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is having two directors namely Palvinder Singh and Krishan Kumar - petitioner. Due to dispute between the directors, Palvinder Singh tempted the respondent department to initiate investigation against the company. Accordingly, investiga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....company to make deposit of entire amount of duty alongwith 25% penalty within a period of eight weeks. The petitioner deposited Rs. 1 lac as per the order but the company did not comply with the order. Vide order dated 24.2.2012, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the company. Thereafter, vide letter dated 7.02.2013, Respondent No.2 directed the company and its directors to deposit entire amount of duty alongwith 25% of duty as penalty. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P.7 informed respondent No.2 that all the plants and machineries were under the charge of Palvinder Singh. Respondent No.2 remained silent from 2013 to 2015 and vide letter dated 24.3.2015 asked the petitioner to deposit dues of the company i.e. du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were dismissed on 22.6.2010. Aggrieved by the order, they filed appeals before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 24.2.2012, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the company as it failed to deposit the entire duty alongwith 25% of penalty within a period of eight weeks from the date of hearing i.e. 17.11.2011. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lacs towards penalty. The petitioner deposited the said amount. The petitioner further requested the respondent vide letter dated 28.3.2013 to recover the dues through attachment of stocks and machines. Respondent No.2 is now compelling the petitioner to clear the dues o....