2004 (10) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....31-3-2004 (issued on 30-4-2004) whereby he confirmed duty demand of Rs. 14,11,387/- (Annexure-A), the said order was received by the petitioner company on 2-6-2004. On receiving the same, within a period of limitation, the petitioner company filed appeal with stay applications before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26-7-2004 (Annexure-B). The same are pending even today without any further orders passed on it because the officer concerned, who is in-charge of the Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot has been transferred somewhere in June, 2004 and since then the office is lying vacant as new incumbent has not taken charge of the office of Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot. 3.During the pendency and final disposal of the appeal and stay applicatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer including Range Officer. In para 4 of the reply affidavit it is stated that "it is not correct to say that the Respondents have initiated coercive action for recovery because only after completion of three months period and nothing was heard from the petitioner by the Range Superintendent, the letter dated 27-09-2004 was written by the Supdt. to the petitioner asking for payment of confirmed dues. However, on receipt of the information from the petitioner that the stay application and an appeal is already lodged, no further action was taken in this regard."……..(emphasis supplied). 6.From the averments made in paras 3 and 4 of the reply affidavit it is clear that they had not contemplated any further action, including the act....