R.S.W.M. Ltd. vs Union of India

It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30-3-2012 has been filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-II on 30-6-2012 and has also filed an application seeking interim relief. However, according to the learned counsel, the predicament of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority has not at all taken up the appeal and the stay application for hearing/consideration and simply the matter remains pending and on the other hand, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued the questioned Circular bearing Number 967/1/2013- CX., dated 1-1-2013 which, in effect, requires recovery proceedings to be initiated after 30 days of the filing of the appeal in case no slay is granted. It is submitted that the stipulations contained in the said circular are likely to cause unnecessary prejudice to the petitioner whose appeal and the stay application on one hand remains pending without the Appellate Authority taking up the same for consideration; and on the other hand the disputed demand is sought to be recovered by adopting coercive methods.

The learned counsel has also referred to an order dated 9-1-2013 said to have been passed by the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 734/2013. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta submits that as per his instructions there are only two posts of Commissioner (Appeals) at Jaipur, one of which is vacant since the month of October 2011 and several of such matters remain pending consideration.

Let notices be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted and finally disposed at this stage. Notices of the stay application be also issued. Notices be made returnable on 6-2-2013 and be given ''Dasti'' to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if so desired.

In the meanwhile and until the next date in this matter or until disposal of the stay application by the Appellate Authority, whichever is earlier, there shall be stay over recovery of the amount as involved in the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

It is made clear that pendency of this writ petition or passing of this order shall not be of any impediment in the Appellate Authority considering the stay application moved by the petitioner; and for that matter, the petitioner shall be under an obligation to attend the date of hearing, if at all fixed by the Appellate Authority for consideration of the stay application. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall be under an obligation to abide by the order that might finally be passed by the Appellate Authority on the prayer for interim relief in the appeal; and for that matter, pendency of writ petition shall not be of any impediment in the Appellate Authority passing the appropriate order in accordance with law nor the petitioner shall be entitled to avoid its liability.