M/S Intel Technology India Private ... vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Intel Technology India Private ... vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2013

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                            1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

                        BEFORE

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

                W.P.NO.4455/2013(T-TAR)

BETWEEN:

M/s Intel Technology India Private Limited,
Survey No.23-56P,
Devaranbeensanahalli,
Outer Ring Road,
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560037,
Represented by Director.
MR.ARUN VASUDEV RAO                      .... Petitioner

(By Sri.Sajan poovayya, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Union of India,
       Represented by its Secretary,
       Ministry of Finance,
       Department of Revenue,
       North Block, New Delhi-110011.

2.     The Central Board of Excise and Customs,
       Department of Revenue,
       Ministry of Finance,
       Represented by Chairman,
       North Block, New Delhi-110011.

3.     The Commissioner of Central
       Excise and service tax(LTU,
                              2



     JSS Tower, 100 Feet Ring Road,
     Banashankari III Stage,
     Bangalore-560085.

4.   The Deputy Commissioner(LTU),
     JSS Tower, 100 Feet Ring Road,
     Banashankari III Stage,
     Bangalore-560085
                                            .... Respondents


(By: Sri.N.K.Bhaskar, CGSS)

     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India praying to quash the Sl.No.6 of
the circular dated 1.1.2013 issued under Section 378 of
the Excise Act produced as Annx-A.


     This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:


                           ORDER

Sri. N.K.Bhaskar, Central Government Senior 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 3 coercive steps for recovery of the demand made in the letter dated 01.01.2013 - Annexure-A.

3. Annexure-A 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-A 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 may start sitting from the first week of February 2013. In the circumstances the writ petition is 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 3 weeks. Till the disposal of 4 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE HR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court