Global Oil Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cus., C. EX. and S.T., Guntur

Goda Raghuram, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohan Rao and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is filed to prevent respondents 1 and 2 from initiating coercive steps for recovery of the amount representing the Cenvat Credit availed wrongly u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and equal amounts towards penalty, as confirmed by the common order of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), dated 24-12-2010.

Against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals) dated 24-12-2010 in Order-in-Appeal Nos. 04 and 05/2010(T)(D) CE, the petitioner preferred appeals before the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench Along with the appeals, the petitioner filed applications being Nos. E/SC/565 and E/SC/566 of 2011 seeking dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and for stay of recovery of the tax liability and penalty as determined by the order under appeals Complaining that the 3rd respondent-Tribunal has neither taken up the substantive appeals nor the application for interim relief for adjudication and asserting that the Tribunal has become dysfunctional for the nonce on account of the absence of the Presiding Officer, is this writ petition filed.

It is now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohan Rao that the Tribunal is now functioning, but on account of the huge pendency, the Tribunal is not taking up either the substantive appeals or applications for interim relief.

4 In the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition requesting the 3rd respondent the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench to consider and dispose of the applications being Nos. E/SC/565 and E/SC/566 of 2011 filed along with the appeals bearing Nos. E/900 and E/901 of 2011 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order If the learned CESTAT, Bangalore Bench declines to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit u/s 35F of the Act, the petitioner shall be liable to make the pre-deposit and only thereafter the CESTAT is required to dispose of the applications for interim relief Respondents 1 and 2 shall not take coercive steps against the petitioner till the disposal of the interlocutory applications of the petitioner for recovery of the amount liable to be deposited by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above There shall be no order as to costs.