Sanjeev Kumar & Others vs Commissioner Excise & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to decide the Excise Appeal 162-Appeal/Udham Singh Nagar (Suresh Chand Joshi)/2022-23 Dehradun within a stipulated time.

Facts of the case are that petitioner owed a sum of Rs.31,23,109/- along with interest towards Minimum Monthly Guarantee Duty (MMGD) for the Excise Year 2020-21. Petitioner filed an appeal u/s 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 before the Commissioner, Excise which is pending consideration. During pendency of appeal, recovery citation of the aforesaid amount is issued by the orders of respondent no.4.

It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that since the appeal is pending, therefore, the recovery citation issued by respondent no.4 should not have been issued.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the recovery citation was issued by respondent no.4 for the reason that there is no stay order in the appeal, rather the statutory deposit by the appellant for maintaining the appeal has not been made and the exemption application is pending disposal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondent no.1– Commissioner Excise should be directed to decide the exemption application of the petitioner first and if exemption is not granted, petitioner shall deposit the statutory amount, and thereafter, the appeal shall be decided by the said respondent in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. For a period of 30 days, the impugned recovery citation dated 02.09.2024 issued by respondent no.4 shall be kept in abeyance.

Ordered accordingly.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.