By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar telang Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
The Court initiates contempt proceedings against Superintendent, for issuing demand notice to assessee based on Circular No. No.967/01/2013-CX dated 01/01/2013 operation of which was stayed by the Court.
Facts:
The petitioner in this writ petition questioned the legality and validity of the demand notice issued by the superintendent under the OIO which was subject matter of appeal and stay application before the CESTAT . The stay application was listed before CESTAT but could not be heard and got adjourned either due to non-availability of Bench or for not reaching. The impugned demand notice was issued after 8 months from the date of filing of stay application essentially with reference to Circular No.967/01/2013-CX dated 01/01/2013. It was submitted that, in Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Central Excise 2013 (290) ELT 353 (Raj), the said circular was declared non est by the High Court and the respondents were prohibited from making coercive recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned circular.
Held:
The High Court observed that in the Manglam Cement’s case (supra) vide Final Order dated 01/01/2013, the Court undisputedly held the said circular non-est in so far as it relates to the situation where the appeals with the application had been filed they remained pending for the reasons not attributable to the assesse in any manner. The court got dismayed by the fact that despite such a considered decision, the superintendent, with impunity chose to issue demand notice with reference to very same circular, although the legal position in this regard was concluded more than seven months back and in no uncertain terms. Having regard to the circumstances, the court not only admitted the writ petition staying the operation of the impugned order but also directed to initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned superintendent.
