Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
0 /50 characters
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles
Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
- 0 - Views
Recovery of Confirmed Demands‏ during pendency of Stay applications
Date 04 Jan 2013
Written By
New Circular Alters Recovery Process for Pending Appeals, Faces Criticism for Contradicting Section 35F of Central Excise Act
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) issued Circular No. 967/01/2013, changing the recovery process of confirmed demands during the pendency of stay applications. It rescinds seven previous circulars and mandates recovery if a stay is not granted within 30 days by Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, or immediately for High Courts and Supreme Court cases. This shift is based on a Supreme Court ruling that filing an appeal does not automatically stay the order. The Circular faces criticism for contradicting Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and for being impractical given the backlog in appellate tribunals.

CBEC has issued its first Central Excise Circular No. 967/01/2013 - CX, dated January 01, 2013 on eve of New Year 2013, for recovery of confirmed demands during pendency of Stay applications. The Circular has rescinded seven previous circulars on the subject matter. The said Circular has brought about a significant shift in the timing of recovery of confirmed demands, where the stay applications are not disposed off by the appellate authorities, within a period of 30 days of filing thereof.

The Board has noticed a Supreme Court judgement delivered in case of Krishna Sales (P) Ltd 1993 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein the Court observed that "As is well known, mere filing of an Appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the Order appealed against”.

As per this Circular, if a stay application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT and if there is no stay within 30 days, recovery action has to be initiated. In case of stay applications before the High Courts and Supreme Court, even this 30 days’ time is not available. Recovery has to be initiated immediately after the orders if there is no stay. A moot question arises à who will come forward to rescue Trade/ Commerce when:

  • The Board is aware that CESTAT Bench sitting only intermittently in Bangalore, Chennai & Kolkata and given the pendency of matters before the Appellate Commissioner, it will be very difficult to obtain stay within a period of 30 days after filing of stay petition.
  • This Circular is contrary to the provisions of the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, in so far as it indirectly imposes a time line of 30 days for disposal of stay petitions by the Tribunal. Hence the same is ex-facie amenable to challenge, being in excess of the statutory provisions.
  • The Circular issued by the Board lacks foresight, proper understanding of the real situation - draconian Circular

Members are requested to give their suggestions on said Circular for onward submission to CBEC. Your suggestions may reach us latest by Monday, 7th January 2013 by email.  taxmanagementindia.com

You may download the Circular from the following link: 

Circular No. 967/01/2013 – CX, Dated 01/01/2013

0 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide

No Replies are present for this Article

Similar Articles
Recent Articles