Madras High Court
M/S.Tamil Nadu Newsprint And Papers vs Customs on 18 June, 2014
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.06.2014
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
W.P.Nos.11207 & 11208 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers
Limited (TNPL)
rep.by Mr.S.Kalyanasundaram,
General Manager(Purchase & Offsites),
Door No.67, Mount Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.11207 of 2014
A.Kishore,
General Manager,
Corporate & Finance
M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers
Limited (TNPL) ... Petitioner in W.P.No.11208 of 2014
Vs.
1.Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT),
rep.by its Asst. Registrar,
Shastri Bhavan, Annexe Building,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai-600 006
2.Commissioner of Customs
Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli,
Trichy-620 001 .. Respondents in both the W.Ps.
Prayer in W.P.No.11207 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent and subordinate officers and counterparts from initiating any coercive action for recovery of Rs.21,80,99,408/- as differential duty and Rs.2,20,00,000/- as penalty from the petitioner pursuant to Order-in-original No.2 of 2014 dated 28.01.2014 passed by the second respondent pending disposal of the petitioner's Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit before the first respondent Tribunal at Chennai.
Prayer in W.P.No.11208 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent and subordinate officers and counter part officers from initiating any coercive action for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty pursuant to Order-in-Original No.2 of 2014 dated 28.1.2014 passed by the second respondent pending disposal of the petitioner's stay application and waiver of pre-deposit before the first respondent Tribunal at Chennai.
For Petitioners .. Mr.C.Saravanan
For Respondents .. Mr.V.Sundareswaran
COMMON ORDER
By consent the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2.The petitioners are manufacturers of paper and paper boards. It is stated that for manufacturing purpose, the petitioners imported "steaming non-coking coal" for being used for generation of steam, both for manufacturing process and for generation of power for captive consumption within their unit. According to the petitioners the imported goods were provisionally assessed to duty under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and were allowed to be cleared as 'Steaming Coal" under concessional rate of duty. The invoice and agreement with the supplier also describes the coal as 'steaming non-coking coal'.
3. While things stood thus, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 21.05.2013, directing the petitioners to pay the 'differential customs duty' of Rs.21,80,99,048/- together with interest on the import of 5,00,586 MT of coal valued at Rs.207,08,92,079/-, classifying the imported coal as 'bituminous coal'. The petitioners sent their reply, dated 20.09.2013 and also appeared for personal hearing and requested the second respondent to drop the proceedings.
4.However, the second respondent issued the Order-in-Original No.02/2014, dated 28.01.2014, and confirmed the demand, classifying the imported coal as 'bituminous coal' and denied the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS, dated 17.3.2012 and also ordered for confiscation of the imported coal. The second respondent has also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-.
5.As against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the first respondent herein, together with stay application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962 and for stay of the operation of the Order-in-original No.2 of 2014. Pending the stay application, it is stated that the second respondent is taking coercive action to recover the disputed duty and penalty. Hence these writ petitions.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the stay application has not so far been disposed of by the CESTAT and the same is pending, the second respondent should not resort to any coercive action for recovery of demand or penalty, pending disposal of the petitioner's stay application by the CESTAT.
7.In view of the above admitted facts, I am of the view that that when stay application is pending before the CESTAT, the second respondent should not resort to any coercive action for collection of any amount, till the stay application is disposed of by the CESTAT. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the the second respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovering any amount from the petitioners, till the disposal of the stay application by the CESTAT. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Msk 18.6.2014
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Asst. Registrar,
Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT),
Shastri Bhavan, Annexe Buildikng,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai-600 006
2.Commissioner of Customs
Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli,
Trichy-620 001
B.RAJENDRAN, J.
msk
W.P.Nos.11207 & 11208 of 2014
18.06.2014