RALLIS INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter, not figuring in today's cause list, is mentioned by the appellants' Counsel in the wake of coercive recovery proceedings taken by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise after the filing of the appeal and stay application. The appeal is against a demand of duty of over Rs. 2.4 crores and a penalty of Rs. 1 crore. It was filed on 25 -11 -2005. The stay application seeking waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts was also filed on that day. This application, we are told, stands posted to 4 -4 -2006. Meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner, by a letter dated 30 -1 -2006, requested the appellants to pay the above amounts within 15 days or, in the alternative, produce stay order from the Tribunal. In reply to this letter, the party informed the Assistant Commissioner that their stay application was pending and was expected to be disposed of in very near future. They requested the Assistant Commissioner to wait till then. Meanwhile, the appellants addressed the Assistant Registrar of this Bench and requested him to post their stay application for hearing at the earliest, but the latter could not act upon such request for want of Division Bench sitting. While so, the Assistant Commissioner issued a demand notice dated 16 -2 -2006 to the party directing them to pay the dues within 7 days and warning that, in the event of default, steps would be taken to realise the amounts in accordance with the provisions of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Customs Dues) Rules, 1995 as made applicable to recovery of Central Excise dues under Section 22 of the Central Excise Act. Rule 9 of the said Rules was reproduced as a footnote to this notice. This notice was received by the party on 20 -2 -2006 and they apprehend attachment of their property. Hence the mention of the matter by their Counsel today.

(2.) LD . Counsel submits that they have a prima facie case against the demand of duty and penalty and that, if the coercive action is allowed to go ahead before the stay application is disposed of by this Tribunal, they would be put to irreparable loss and legal injury. The coercive action proposed by the Assistant Commissioner is diametrically against the Board's instructions contained in Circular No. -CX, dated 25 -5 -2004, which is binding on the Assistant Commissioner. This circular deals with a factual situation like the one obtaining in the appellants' case. An appeal has been preferred to this Tribunal against the demand of duty and an application seeking stay of recovery is also pending. In such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner should have honoured the Board's instructions which reads thus:

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, it is ordered that there shall be no further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice dated 16 -2 -2006 of the Assistant Commissioner till final disposal of the stay application pending before us.