9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the recovery order dated 9-7-2013 (Annexure C) and to declare the same as illegal and bad in law. It is also further prayed to direct the respondent to immediate refund of their rebate claims in 7 days to the petitioner and not to initiate any coercive recovery and/or take any action pending hearing and final disposal of their stay applications and the appeals. 3. It appears that Order-in-Original dated 28-2-2013 has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat against the petitioner unit demanding the service tax of Rs. 1,20,79,520/-. By the said OIO, the Commissioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -deposit and has further passed order that subject to such compliance being reported, application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeals. Thus, it appears that the learned CESTAT has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as pre-deposit against the demand under the OIO of Rs. 1,20,79,520/- + interest and penalty. That the department had already recovered an amount of Rs. 1,49,92,754/- from the other 9 sanctioned rebate claims of exports of the petitioner and adjusted towards above dues themselves. How it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after deducting the amount of Rs. 10 lacs which the petitioner is directed to deposit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the respondent that the delay in deciding the stay application is attributable to the petitioner. Now, subsequently the stay applications are decided and the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs only as pre-deposit and on such deposit further recovery has been stayed. As stated above, in the meantime respondent No. 2 has recovered an amount of Rs. 1,49,92,754/- by adjusting the same from the other 9 sanctioned rebate claims of exports of the petitioner. Thus, respondent No. 2 is now required to refund the balance amount of Rs. 1,39,92,754/- (after deducting Rs. 10 lacs which the petitioner is directed to deposit as pre-deposit). If the respondent No. 2 would have waited till the stay applications are decided such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
