CIPLA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Counsel representing the appellants, M/s. CIPLA Ltd. submits before us that the stay application Nos. E/St/671/08 and E/St/161/09 in Appeal Nos. E/916/08 and E/234/09 have not been heard by this Bench in their turn for technical reasons. He submits that the stay applications are kept pending for posting when a Bench comprising a different Judicial Member is constituted at Bangalore and it is not certain when such a Bench would be constituted and these applications would be heard. He submits that for want of a stay order, the departmental authorities have already initiated proceedings to recover the dues adjudged against the appellants. He further submits that in view of the directions issued by CBEC, the departmental authorities are barred from taking coercive steps for recovery of the disputed amounts.

(2.) HEARD the learned Jt. CDR who submits that a decision was taken by this Bench on 28 -5 -2009 to transfer these matters to Chennai Bench and even though a Bench comprising different members sat at Bangalore, these matters were not listed for hearing.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the Honble President of the CESTAT had directed that these matters should be heard at Bangalore when a Bench comprising a different judicial member sits at Bangalore. Accordingly, Registry is directed to post these matters at the earliest.