LEE PHARMA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhaley and Sri Jalakam Sathyaram, learned Standing counsel for the respondents in the several writ petitions. As the core of the grievances presented in these writ petitions falls within a narrow compass insofar as the judicial review is concerned and shares a common characteristic, we dispose of the several writ petitions by this common order.

(2.) Orders-In-Original were passed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or for levy and collection of Service Tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 against the several petitioners. In some of the matters, petitioners had preferred appeals against the Orders-in-Original, which were rejected. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Appeal or Orders-in-Original, as the case may be, further appeals were preferred to the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench (for short 'the Tribunal').

(3.) Along with the respective appeals petitioners preferred applications for waiver of the pre-deposit and applications for stay of tax as determined by the Orders-in-Original or as confirmed in Orders-in-Appeals, as the case may be. It is the common refrain in the writ petitions, reiterated in oral argument by the learned counsel that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal is not functioning on account of a vacancy in the office of the Technical Member; and the Tribunal is unable therefore to take up the petitioners applications for waiver for pre-deposit and for grant of stay of levy of the tax, interest and penalties, as the case may be. In some of the writ petitions a Circular dated 1-1-2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi has been challenged, whereunder a generic directive is issued to Revenue to initiate recovery proceedings 30 days after filing of the appeal, if no stay were granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners however do not wish to pursue the challenge to the Circular in these writ petitions and are satisfied if this Court were to dispose of the writ petitions directing Revenue not to initiate coercive measures till the Tribunal takes up and disposes of the applications preferred by them, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the applications for grant of stay of collection of the Tax, interest and penalties, as determined, by the Orders-in-Original or as confirmed in orders-in-appeal, as the case may be.