INDIA STEEL WORKS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges : -

(2.) MR . Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's appeal from the order dated 31 July, 2006 before the Tribunal is still awaiting disposal. The Tribunal by order dated 15 December, 2006, granted stay with regard to the deposit of balance duty and penalty amount considering the fact that the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. This stay granted by the Tribunal was extended from time to time for six months each and last such extension was granted on 24 August, 2012. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application for extension of stay and the same is awaiting disposal before the Tribunal and this delay on the part of the Tribunal in disposing of the application for extension of stay as well as the appeal is not on account of any act on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the stay granted by the order dated 15 December, 2006 should be deemed to be continued till the disposal of the appeal as held by this Court in Nedumparambli P. George v. Union of India -2009 (242) E.L.T. 523 and Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India - : 2013 (29) S.T.R. 449 : 2013 (288) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.) and Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Ahmedabad v. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. ltd. - : 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434. On the above basis, it is submitted that it should be deemed that the stay of the order dated 31 July, 2006 is extended and, therefore, no occasion to appropriate any part of the petitioner's rebate aggregating to Rs. 87,05,330/ - against the dues payable under the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 31 July, 2006 can arise.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions. The decision of this Court in Nedumparambli P. George (supra) was dealing with the situation where the revenue initiated proceedings for recovery of dues on the expiry of the 180 days period provided under the Customs Act (identical provision in the said Act), pending the disposal of the appeal. Similarly in the case of L & T (supra), the Court was dealing with a Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 1 January, 2013 directing recovery proceeding even in situation where the stay applications are pending before the appellate authorities. So far as the Apex Court's decision in Kumar Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it was dealing with the effect of stay order passed prior to introduction of sub -section (2A) to Section 35C of the Act. In the above context, it was held that the above amendment did not curtail the power of the Tribunal to extend the stay exceeding six months.