2017 (12) TMI 900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner's unpaid penalty dues arising out of Order in Original passed by the Commissioner. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 2.1 By the order dated 17/19.02.2009, the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand against the company with interest and penalty. Personal penalty on the petitioner, who was Director of the company, was also imposed. All the noticees of the show cause notice leading to the said order had preferred separate appeals before the CESTAT. They had also prayed for stay pending the appeals. By common order dated 04.04.2011, CESTAT provided that:- "8. Having observed the prima-facie nature of the matter in respect of all the three imputations, and having held in respect of the imputation No.2 that the appellant has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellants, who were none other than Directors of the company. 2.3 It is an admitted position that the company failed to deposit such amount and consequently, company's appeal has also been dismissed by the Tribunal. It is in this background that the Department initiated recovery proceedings against the present petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the Tribunal. Stay has not been vacated. Recovery pending appeal, therefore, initiated by the Department is improper and impermissible. He relied on the decision of Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of PML Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2013 (209) ELT, 3, whic....