M/S Big Bags International Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Big Bags International Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                          1
                                      W.P.2644-2647/13

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                   BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2013

                       BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

     WRIT PETITION Nos.2644-2647 OF 2013 (T-TAR)


BETWEEN :

M/S BIG BAGS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/S. BIG BAGS INDIA PVT. LTD.)
NO.116/117, MACHOHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560091.
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR,
SHRI,MEHUL SHAH.
                                      ...PETITIONER

( By Sri. B N GURURAJ, ADVOCATE )

AND :

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

2     CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
      AND CUSTOMS,
      NEW DELHI-110001,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
                           2
                                        W.P.2644-2647/13

3    ASSISTANT COMMISSISONER OF
     CENTRAL EXCISE
     KENGERI DIVISION,
     UMA COMPLEX,
     NO.110/10, LALBAGH ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560027.
                               ...RESPONDENTS

( By Sri. N R BHASKAR, ADVOCATE )


     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR A WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 1.1.13
AT ANNX-C; AND ETC.


     THESE   WRIT    PETITIONS   COMING   ON  FOR
PRL.HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING: :


                       ORDER

There is no dispute that petitioner had the benefit of an interim order of stay in the proceedings before the CESTAT and that on the expiry of the period of stay, petitioner filed an application for extension of the interim order. In the circumstances, it is needless to state that respondent No.3 must refrain from enforcing the order in appeal until such 3 W.P.2644-2647/13 time the CESTAT takes a decision over the application for extension of the period of stay and until disposal of the appeal.

2. In the light of the aforesaid observations, these petitions are accordingly ordered. CESTAT is directed to consider the application for extension of interim order until disposal of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in the interregnum, respondent No.3 is directed not to precipitate the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. In other words, there shall be an order of stay of the notice impugned.

Sd/-

JUDGE sma

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court