1997 (4) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ghvi, J.]. - The only substantive grievance made by the petitioner is against the coercive measures adopted by the Respondent No. 2 for recovery of the demand raised by the said respondent vide order Annexure P1, dated 24-9-1996. 2.The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of ordinary portland cement. According to the petitioner, its product is classifiable under subheading 2502.22 of the Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny date of hearing. Therefore, the petitioner made application dated 10-2-1997 and requested the Respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the appeal and the stay application by pointing out that the Respondent No. 2 was threatening to take coercive measures for recovery of the demand. Having failed to evoke any response from the Respondent No. 1, the petitioner has moved this Court and has prayed for q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r but the same has not been heard. The application for stay filed by the petitioner has also not been considered and decided by the Respondent No. 1. Notwithstanding this, the Respondent No. 2 has started coercive steps to recover the amount specified in Annexure P1. 5.It has been consistently held by the Courts that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to a party aggrieved against an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made by the aggrieved party for stay of the order impugned in the appeal. 6.There also does not appear to be any justification for the competent authority like the Respondent No. 2 to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the amount allegedly due from the assessee even before the appellate authority passes an order on the application filed for grant of interim stay. The assessing authority....