Case Law Details

Case Name : Lenovo India (P.) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : M.P No. 2 & 3 OF 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/01/2013
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4417) Madras High Court (338)

Madras HC grant interim stay in respect of demand raised pursuant to CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, dated 1-1-2013

Despite filing of the stay application, the direction for recovery makes it mandatory for the authority to recover the amount within a period of 30 days after the filing of the appeal even if there is a stay application pending and has not been disposed of. The plea taken is that the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act does not specify any time limit. In such view of the matter, it is pleaded that the circular overreaches the provisions.

In view of the above, post the matter on 31.01.2013. There will be an order of interim stay and interim injunction till then.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Lenovo India (P.) Ltd.

Versus

Union of India

WP NO. 1562 OF 2013

M.P NOS. 2 & 3 OF 2013

JANUARY 21, 2013

ORDER

1. These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. SUJIT GHOSH, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. V. Sundareswaran, CGSC for Respondents the court made the following order:-

Mr. Sundareswaran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the Department and seeks time to get instructions.

2. The petitioner challenges the Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 1.1.2013 and the consequential notice for recovery dated 9.1.2013 in the writ petition. An appeal has been filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal along with the stay application, but no hearing has been granted so far. In the meanwhile, recovery notice has been issued on 9.1.2013. Despite filing of the stay application, the direction for recovery makes it mandatory for the authority to recover the amount within a period of 30 days after the filing of the appeal even if there is a stay application pending and has not been disposed of. The plea taken is that the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act does not specify any time limit. In such view of the matter, it is pleaded that the circular overreaches the provisions.

3. In view of the above, post the matter on 31.01.2013. There will be an order of interim stay and interim injunction till then. The petitioner is permitted to take steps to implead the CESTAT before which the appeal is pending, as a party respondent, in the meantime.

NF

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (4169)
Type : Judiciary (12648)
Tags : high court judgments (4733)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts