TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cive 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 Central Excise Tariff Act and it is entitled to exemption from paying tax under Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested 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 quashing of the order Annexure P1 and for restraining the Respondent No. 2 from taking c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso 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 order passed by an authority which exercises powers under a particular statute, jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes 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 as well as the appellate authority are part of the departmental heirarcy and there does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
