TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should commence immediately after the order is passed by the Appellate Commissioner, in our view, would not be permissible. - to provide that as soon as the order is passed by the Commissioner confirming the duty demand made by the adjudicating authority, the order should be executed without any leverage would give rise to large number of cases which would travel to the High Court at such an interim stage. We are not inclined to accept a situation where such unnecessary litigation would arise. - Condition No. 10 insofar as it provides for immediate recovery as soon as the order is passed in appeal also needs to be read down as to permitting reasonable time to the assessee to seek protection from the appellate forum. This period of reasonable time must be judged in the facts of each case and cannot be equated with full period of limitation. - Decided partly in favor of revenue. Regarding appealable orders either before the High Court or the Supreme Court - held that:- The period of limitation prescribed for filing such appeal is 180 days. The Central Excise Act or the Customs Act nowhere envisages that for the entire period of full 180 days of limitation, even at the stage of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication was pending for no fault of the assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 1124 of 2013 with S.C.A. Nos. 977, 1024, 1236, 1273, 1390, 1511, 1580, 1609, 1644, 1732, 1816, 1818, 1978, 2096, 2098, 2148, 2213, 2236, 2268, 2316, 2422-2424, 2434, 2461, 2473, 2475, 2478, 2531, 2541, 2547, 2576 and 26 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2013 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. Shri K.S. Nanavati, Sr. Advocate with Kunal Nanavati, for Nanavati Associates, Kamal Trivedi, AG, Bijal Chatrapati for Singhi Co., Paresh M. Dave, Paritosh Gupta, A.P. Nainawati, Uday M. Joshi for M/s. Trivedi Gupta, S.N. Thakkar, Dhaval Shah, Hardik Modh, Nikhil S. Kariel and D.K. Trivedi, for the Petitioner. Shri P.S. Champaneri, R.J. Oza, Y.N. Ravani, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Gaurang Bhatt and Mrs. V.D. Nanavati, Advocates, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT In this group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged various recovery notices issued by the Customs and Central Excise Department on the basis of the revised guidelines issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E. C. for short) dated 1-1-2013. The petitioners have challenged such Circular dated 1-1-2013 as also the individual demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1944 read with C.B.E. C. Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX., dated 1-1-2013 (Serial No. 11) to pay the duty amount along with interest in Government exchequer within seven days from the receipt of this notice, failing which will initiate action against you under Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944, such as attachment and sale of your excisable goods to recover the govt. dues. It is this notice which the petitioner has challenged in this petition along with the C.B.E. C. Circular, dated 1-1-2013. From the perusal of the notice, it emerges that recovery of the Departmental dues is initiated on the strength of the C.B.E. C. Circular dated 1-1-2013. 4. In all the petitions recoveries are founded on the C.B.E. C. Circular dated 1-1-2013. The impugned circular dated 1-1-2013 reads as under : Subject Recovery of confirmed demand during pendency of stay application - Regarding. I am directed to bring your attention to the following circulars issued from time to time on the above issue and to state that it has been decided to rescind these circulars with immediate effect. Sr. No. Date Circular no and File number of CX-6 1. 18- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time Recovery to be initiated after expiry of statutory period of 90 days for filing appeal from the date of communication of order. 8. CESTAT Appeal filed without stay application against an Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand for the first time Recovery to be initiated on filing of such an appeal in the CESTAT, without waiting for the statutory 90 days period to be exhausted. 9. CESTAT Appeal filed with a stay application against an Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand for the first time Recovery to be initiated 30 days after the filing of appeal, if no stay is granted or after the disposal of stay petition in accordance with the conditions of stay, if any, whichever is earlier. 10. CESTAT All the cases where Commissioner (Appeals) confirms demand in the Order-in-Original Recovery to be initiated immediately on this issue of Order-in-Appeal. 11. High Court or Supreme Court Tribunal or High Court confirms the demand. Recovery to be initiated immediately on the issue of order by the Tribunal or the High Court, if no stay is in operation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity be recovered would be grossly unjust. 6. Appearing for the petitioners, leading the challenge, learned Senior Counsel Shri K.S. Nanavati, raised following contentions : (i) That the C.B.E. C. did not have power to issue such guidelines. That Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not vest such powers in the Board. He also argued that no such powers can be traced in Rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. (ii) With respect to various situations provided in the impugned circular, the counsel attacked those contained in clauses 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of para 2. It was contended that the demand which is not yet finalized cannot be recovered. When appeal is pending along with stay application, to permit the Departmental Authorities to proceed with recovery proceedings would be wholly unjust, arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (iii) It was next contended that set-up of appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal is maintained and provided by the Government. In numerous cases, appeals and stay applications are not heard by such fora for non-availability of members. In such a situation, an assessee would be rendered defenceless if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be applicable to such cases also. The said decision, however, was rendered in the backdrop of the then prevailing instructions which distinguished between appeals involving quantum of more than Rs. 5 lacs and less than Rs. 5 lacs. Such decision, in our opinion, therefore would not have any bearing on the present controversy. (ii) In the case of Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India, 2004 (163) E.L.T. 300 (Kar.) wherein a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court stated thus : 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and in our judgment, it is not permissible for the Assistant Commissioner to commence the recovery proceedings even while the stay application filed by the appellant is pending before respondent No. 2 and is not disposed of. The appellate authority cannot decline to consider the stay application and thereby permitting respondent No. 3 to proceed with the enforcement of the order of adjudication. It is, therefore, necessary to direct that the respondent No. 3 shall not proceed with the recovery in pursuance of the adjudication order as long as respondent No. 2 has not disposed of the stay application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench of this Court in the peculiar facts of the case, gave certain directions in which it was observed as under : 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner has, seriously criticized the approach of the respondent authority in employing coercive recovery proceedings even when the stay application pending appeal was yet not heard and that this Court in many such cases has stayed the coercive measures until the stay application is decided. It was, therefore, stated that the petitioner would like to move the appropriate authority for release of the goods attached on payment of duties. In view of the peculiar facts and the fact that the goods are required to be used for irrigation and allied programmes in drought affected areas, the authority concerned shall decide such application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the application. It can thus be seen that the Court gave certain directions in peculiar facts of the case. (vi) Validity of the circular came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 (288) E.L.T. 481 = 2013 (29) S.T.R. 449 (Bom.). Para 13 of the said ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld, to our mind, be a travesty of justice if recovery proceedings are allowed to be initiated in the meantime. The protection of the revenue has to be necessarily balanced with fairness to the assessee. That was why, even though a specific statutory provision came to be introduced by Parliament in Section 35C(2A) to the effect that an order of stay would stand vacated where the appeal before the Tribunal was not disposed within 180 days, the Supreme Court held that this would not apply to a situation where the appeal had remained pending for reasons not attributable to the assessee. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri R.J. Oza and Shri Y.N. Ravani for the Department opposed the petitions raising following contentions : (i) The order passed by the competent departmental authority or the court becomes immediately executable unless stayed by higher forum. Reliance in this respect was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., 1994 (73) E.L.T. 519 (S.C.). The said decision was, however, rendered in the background of the facts that the assessee had succeeded before the appellate Tribunal on certain issue whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) E.L.T. 24 (Mad.) wherein learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court refused to stay recovery on the ground that against the order confirming the duty, no stay was operating. (ii) In the case of Areva T D India Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr. of C. Ex., Chennai, 2011 (271) E.L.T. 21 (Mad.) wherein also learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court recorded that when the stay application was listed before the Tribunal, the Department was ready to contest the case, but the counsel for the petitioner sought long adjournment. It was on this background that stay against recovery pending appeal was turned down. (iii) In the case of J J Plast v. Union of India, 2010 (258) E.L.T. 341 (Guj.) wherein request of the petitioner therein to stay recovery on the strength of the circular of the Board was turned down observing that it was not possible to read a sentence of the circular out of context. (iv) Decision in the case of State of A.P. v. McDowell Co. - (1996) 3 SCC 709 was cited to canvass that the guidelines contained in the impugned circular are not arbitrary. We may, however, notice that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case were in the background of challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Section 151A of the Customs Act, 1962 pertains to instructions to the officers of Customs and reads as under : 151A. Instructions to officers of customs. - The Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of goods or with respect to the levy of duty thereon or for the implementation of any other provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force, insofar as they relate to any prohibition, restriction or procedure for import or export of goods issue such orders, instructions and directions to officers of customs as it may deem fit and such officers of customs and all the other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board : Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued - (a) so as to require any such officer or customs to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the exercise of his appellate functions. Insofar as Section 151A of the Customs Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Board. The said rule reads as under : 31. Power to issue supplementary instructions. - (1) The Board or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, may issue written instructions providing for any incidental or supplemental matters, consistent with the provisions of the Act and these rules. 13. Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a rule making power of the Government. Sub-section (1) of Section 37 provides that the Central Government may make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for various issues contained in clauses (i) to (xxviii) of the said sub-section. Clause (xx) which is relevant for our purpose reads as under : (xx) authorise the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963) or Commissioners of Central Excise appointed for the purpose of Act to provide, by written instructions, for supplemental matters arising out of any rule made by the Central Government under this section; In exercise of such rule making powers, the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lability of appellate remedy, if the assessee does not file appeal within the period of limitation prescribed or if any such appeal is filed but is not accompanied by any application for stay, it is provided that in such a situation, recovery would be initiated either at the end of the statutory period of limitation or without waiting for such period if no stay is sought. Obviously, an assessee who either does not prefer an appeal or who though prefers an appeal, does not ask for stay from the appellate authority can hardly avoid recovery of the confirmed demand. 17. The real question is with respect to the reasonableness of the guidelines contained in clauses 3, 6, 9 and 10 of the circular. We may take detailed note of these provisions. 18. Clause 3 pertains to a situation where the adjudicating authority has confirmed certain duty demand first appeal is available and filed along with stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The guidelines provide that in such a case, recovery shall be initiated after 30 days of the filing of the appeal, if no stay is granted or after disposal of the stay application whichever is earlier. It is this clause whichever is earlier whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Department or may be completely independent reasons. Of course, if it is found that the assessee has delayed the disposal of stay application, and has sought unreasonable adjournments leading to the appellate forum not being able to decide the application for stay, it would be open for the Revenue, in an appropriate case, to seek recovery of the confirmed demand even pending appeal and stay application. However, surely, if the non-disposal of the stay application has nothing to do with the conduct of the assessee, Revenue cannot contend that recovery must be permitted in such a situation also. Accepting any such contention of the Revenue would lead to drastic and sometimes absurd situation. For example, before the appellate forum, if the Revenue is unable to present full facts and is therefore compelled to seek adjournments repeatedly and thereby making it impossible for the appellant forum to dispose of the stay application of the assessee, could the Revenue contend that it can take advantage of its own wrong and go ahead with the recovery of demand though the appellate forum is seized of the appeal and stay application? Surely, the answer has to be in the negative. 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an to list exhaustively all the reasons which would be simply beyond the control of the assessee due to which despite the best efforts, stay application filed along appeal well within the period of limitation would not be disposed of within 30 days of filing. In all such cases, if the Revenue were to be permitted to continue with coercive recovery, in our opinion, the same would lead to grossly unjust situation and would not be conducive to the interest of justice. 22. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act pertains to appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). It permits any person aggrieved by an order passed by the adjudicating authority to prefer appeal to the Appellate commissioner within 60 days from the date of communication of such decision to him. Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pertains to Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (1) thereof essentially enables a person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise or the Appellate Commissioner to prefer appeal before the Tribunal. 23. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pertains to pre-deposit pending an appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied. It provides, inter alia, that where an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... predictability in recoveries of confirmed demands. In absence of such guidelines, different recovery authorities may adopt different yardstick and standards. While judging the guidelines in the backdrop of these considerations, we cannot lose sight of two important aspects. Firstly, that as Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 provide for partial or complete waiver of pre-deposit requirement which is within the sole domain of the discretionary jurisdiction of the appellate forum, be it Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal. It is that authority alone which, on the basis of relevant consideration of undue hardship to the assessee and with a view to safeguard the interest of the Revenue may either refuse totally or grant fully or partially waiver of pre-deposit. Once, therefore, an appeal is presented before such a forum, within the period of limitation prescribed along with stay application, even the C.B.E. C. circular recognizes that reasonable time should be allowed to the assessee to pursue such stay application. In that background, once the C.B.E. C. recognizes such leverage to an assessee, to abandon the course mid-way and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy of appeal and the stay application. In this context we are unable to uphold the contention of Shri Nanavati that once appeal and stay application are filed, any attempt on part of the authorities to recover the duty would be encroachment on the power of the appellate body. Mere filing of the proceedings cannot be equated with stay and if such proceedings are not pursued by the assessee with seriousness, he cannot claim immunity from recovery. In the conclusion, Condition Nos. 3, 6 and 9 are read down as to requiring the recovery officer to initiate recovery proceedings pending appeal and stay application only when it is found that the application remained pending beyond 30 days for the reasons of delay which can be attributed to the assessee. This would have to be necessarily judged by the Revenue authorities before initiating the proceedings. While doing so, if the authorities required any details from the assessee, such as the date of filing of the appeal and the stay application, the stage at which such proceedings are pending and the reasons for non-disposal of such proceedings, the assessees in their own interest would be duty bound to supply the same. 27. Condition No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the doors of justice at midnight. If a particular judge or a Bench is not available, the pre-decided guidelines issued by the Chief Justice from time to time always provide an alternative forum of hearing before another Judge or Bench. If a particular Judge cannot take up a matter, it is also decided who else in his substitution will take up such a petition. In that view of the matter, to provide that as soon as the order is passed by the Commissioner confirming the duty demand made by the adjudicating authority, the order should be executed without any leverage would give rise to large number of cases which would travel to the High Court at such an interim stage. We are not inclined to accept a situation where such unnecessary litigation would arise. 28. Culmination of the discussion in the preceding paragraph would be that Condition No. 10 insofar as it provides for immediate recovery as soon as the order is passed in appeal also needs to be read down as to permitting reasonable time to the assessee to seek protection from the appellate forum. This period of reasonable time must be judged in the facts of each case and cannot be equated with full period of limitation. 29. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckly as possible. While considering the question of waiver of pre-deposit, it is within the jurisdiction of the appellate forum to impose such conditions as deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. While, therefore, granting any stay or waiving fully or partly any pre-deposit, it is open and in fact incumbent upon such appellate authority to take into account the Revenue s concern that some condition be imposed on the assessee so that the demand if confirmed in future, recovery does not become illusory. Such consideration can also weigh with the appellate forum at an ad interim stage. In other words, even pending the final disposal of the stay application, it would be within the jurisdiction of the appellate forum to impose some condition on the assessee to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. This, in our opinion, would take care of the anxiety of the Revenue that under the protection of the appellate authorities, ultimately, when the duty demand is confirmed, by virtue of the developments during the pendency of such proceedings, actual recovery becomes impossible. We may remind the appellate fora of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defaulter or his representative in interest shall not be competent to mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with any property belonging to him except with the written permission of the Proper Officer. A situation may arise where an assessee during the period of limitation for filing appeal after a duty demand has been confirmed, may be found to be siphoning away its movable and immovable properties even before filing of appeal. Question in such a situation would arise, whether by virtue of the provisions contained in circular, date 1-1-2013, the Revenue would be defenceless and would be able to take steps only once the entire period of limitation is over or the Recovery Officer can initiate recovery and travel upto the stage of Rule 4 for service of notice of demand and then take recourse to Rule 9 prohibiting any transfer of property thereafter. We are not faced with such a situation and would therefore not like to make any conclusive observations in this regard leaving it open to be judged in a case if and when same comes up before us. 32. Lastly, we may notice that sub-section (2A) of Section 35C provides as under : (2-A) The Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly rescinded circulars mentioned in para 1 of the impugned circular. In our view, it would also not be covered under the description of any other circular, instruction or letter contrary to the said circular. In that view of the matter, the said circular dated 26-5-2010 would continue to operate in the limited field occupied by the said circular irrespective of the fresh guidelines dated 1-1-2013. We needed to clarify this aspect because under the mistaken belief that the Circular, dated 1-1-2013 would cover such a situation also, in some of the cases before us recovery proceedings have been initiated upon stay previously granted by the Tribunal having lapsed after 180 days period though applications filed by the assessees for extension of stay were pending before the Tribunal. 33. Before addressing individual petitions, we may touch upon one more aspect. We wonder why in the present day of advanced technology, the Department should be groping for latest information and current status of assessees further appeal proceedings. Surely, with proper inter-departmental cooperation and computerization and utilization of such technology, the Department should be in a position to track ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal : Tribunal 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : Stay application is not heard though the petitioner has never prayed for any adjournment. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notices are quashed. (5) In Special Civil Application No. 1273 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 21-1-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : January 2010 to September 2012. 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal : Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : No hearing has been granted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner, however, has not prayed for any adjournment. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (6) In Special Civil Application No. 1390 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 17-1-2013 and 29-1-2013. 2. Date/(s) of order/( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : Non-availability of the Division Bench of the Tribunal. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (10) In Special Civil Application No. 1644 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 22-1-2013. 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 29-8-2011. 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal : Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : Notice of hearing not yet received by the petitioner. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (11) In Special Civil Application No. 1732 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 7-2-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 1-10-2012. 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal : Tribunal. 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, applying principles laid down hereinabove, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (15) In Special Civil Application No. 2098 of 2013, following details arise : In this petition, recovery notices have been issued on 13-2-2013. Appeals against the orders passed by the adjudicating authorities are pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). Such appeals have been filed with application for stay within the period of limitation prescribed. Majority of such proceedings are pending without any hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals). In two of the cases, hearing has been concluded in February, 2013, but no final order has been passed and at that stage, the respondents have issued the impugned notices for recovery. For the above reasons, applying principles laid down hereinabove, the impugned recovery notices are quashed. (16) In Special Civil Application No. 2148 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 19-2-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 27-3-2012 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal : Tribunal 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her pre-deposit. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), appeal was preferred before the Tribunal along with stay application within limitation prescribed and hearing of the stay application was fixed on 7-3-3013, despite which notice for recovery was issued on 22-2-2013. It was pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal, no pre-deposit was insisted. Considering the above, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (20) In Special Civil Application No. 2316 of 2013, following details arise : In this case, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 20-2-2013. The petitioner filed appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hearing of such application was fixed on 5-2-2013. Due to non-availability of the Bench, hearing could not take place. At that stage, the recovery notice was issued. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (21) In Special Civil Application Nos. 2422, 2424 and 2434 of 2013, following details arise : The petitioner has challenged the action of recoveries initiated by the respondents. Against different ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the impugned notice. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (23) In Special Civil Application No. 2461 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 4-2-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 30-9-2011. 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/ Tribunal : Commissioner (Appeals) 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : Stay application was listed on 20-2-2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not present. Thereafter, stay application was listed for hearing on 26-2-2013 and the application was heard and reserved for orders. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (24) In Special Civil Application No. 2473 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 20-2-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 22-8-2012. 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal : Tribunal. 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil Application Nos. 2541 to 2547 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 26-2-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 26-9-2012 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/ Tribunal : Tribunal. 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeals and stay applications : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : Due to non-availability of Bench at the Tribunal. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notices are quashed in all these petitions. (29) In Special Civil Application No. 2576 of 2013, following details arise : 1. Date/(s) of impugned notice of recovery : 18-2-2013 2. Date/(s) of order/(s)-in-original : 6-1-2012 3. First Appeal, whether before Commissioner (Appeals)/ Tribunal : Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Appeal filed within limitation and accompanied by stay application : Yes. 5. Status of such appeal and stay application : Pending 6. If pending, the reasons why : No further date of hearing has been granted in the stay application and the appeal. Applying the above principles, the impugned recovery notice is quashed. (30) In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
