M/S Kanoria Plaschem Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2013

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Kanoria Plaschem Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2013

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

        WRIT PETITION NO.6981/2013 (T-TAR)

BETWEEN

M/S KANORIA PLASCHEM PVT. LTD,
NO.121 A BOMMASANDRA INDL. AREA,
BANGALORE-562 158.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SIDDARTH KANORIA).
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
                                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.G.CHIDANANDA URS, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     UNION OF INDIA,
       REPRESENTED BY
       MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       NEW DELHI - 110001.

2.     CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
       AND CUSTOMS,
       MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       NEW DELHI - 110001.
                             2



3.   SUPERINTENDENT OF
     CENTRAL EXCISE,
     HEBBAGODI RANGE,
     BANGALORE III DIVISION,
     OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
     OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
     HEBBAGODI RANGE, 7TH FLOOR,
     'E' WING, KENDRIYA SADAN,
     KORAMANGALA,
     BANGALORE-560 034.
                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T.M.VENKATA        REDDY,        CENTRAL    GOVT.
SR.STANDING COUNSEL)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE BOARD CIRCULAR DATED 1.1.2013 IS
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19[1][g] OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THUS ULTRA VIRES, IN
SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE
ANNEXURE-F.

    THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Sri. T.M. Venkata Reddy, Central Government Sr. Standing Counsel is directed to take notice for respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ directing the respondents not to initiate coercive steps for recovery of the demand made in the letter dated 29.01.2013- Annexure-G.

3. Annexure-G is an outcome of the order passed by the original authority under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the original authority an appeal is preferred before the Appellate Authority and the stay application is pending consideration. In the meanwhile the respondents have issued the impugned notice Annexure-G demanding payment of excise duty as determined by the original authority. The stay application filed by the petitioner is not considered since the Tribunal was not sitting for certain period. Now it is brought to my notice that the Tribunal commenced sitting from the first week of February 2013. In the circumstances the writ petition is 4 hereby disposed off directing the Tribunal to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal before them within a time frame of three weeks. Till the disposal of the stay application by the Appellate Authority the respondents shall not take coercive steps against the petitioner. The Tribunal to expedite the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

Three weeks time is granted to file memo of appearance.

Sd/-

JUDGE VM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court