M/S. KUSHI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-assessee has questioned the legality and validity of the demand notice dated 12.09.2013 (Annex. 'F') as issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Udaipur; and the communication dated 03/07.10.2013 (Annex. 'J') sent by the Additional Commissioner (Recovery), Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-II. By the demand notice dated 12.09.2013, the petitioner-assessee has been called upon to deposit the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,61,17,199/-together with interest and further, the penalty imposed in the sum of Rs. 1,72,17,199/- under the Order-in-Original No. 47/2012/ST/JPR-II dated 23.11.2012. Then, by the communication dated 03/07.10.2013, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. It is submitted that the appeal bearing No. ST/55918/2013-CU(DB) alongwith stay application No. ST/STAY/56256/2013 has been filed by the petitioner-assessee before the CESTAT on 20.02.2013; and the matter was listed on several dates before the CESTAT but got adjourned for one reason or the other though always attended at by or on behalf of the petitioner-assessee.

(2.) It is submitted that the impugned demand notice has been issued essentially with reference to the Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX : , dated 01.01.2013 although the said Circular has already been declared non est by this Court; and the coercive recovery proceedings pursuant to impugned Circular have been prohibited while directing the respondents to ensure hearing of the appeals and interim applications at the earliest. The decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in DBCWP No. 1891/2013 : Manglam Cement Ltd. v. The Superintendent, Central Excise Range-III, Kota & Ors. has been referred.

(3.) The present one is yet another case where this Court is rather dismayed that despite a considered decision of this Court holding the questioned circular as non est, the respondents, with impunity, have chosen to issue such demand notice with reference to the very same Circular; and then, the representation made by the petitioner-assessee has also been rejected with reference to the very same Circular.