The petitioner is engaged in providing some 'taxable service of technical inspection and certification service' to various institutions/establishments like the 6th respondent herein. It is stated that the petitioner has obtained registration under the relevant provision of law. In respect of the period from April 2007 to March 2012, the petitioner was required to show cause as to the proposal to fix liability to the tune of `44,11,388/-, also proposing to impose penalty to an equal extent. Though the petitioner filed 'statement of objections', the same was not properly adverted to and finally, the proposal was confirmed by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P2 order dated 18.10.2012. In this situation, the petitioner availed statutory remedy and filed Ext.P5 appeal along with a petition for stay before the 2nd respondent. In spite of pendency of the matter for more than 'six months', the proceedings are still to be finalised. At the same time, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps, presumably on the basis of a Circular bearing No. 967/01/2013 CX dated WP(c). No. 28356 of 2014 2 01.01.2013 to the effect that, in cases where appeals are pending along with Interlocutory Applications and if no interim order has been obtained in such Interlocutory Applications, coercive proceedings are to be initiated for recovery of the due amount after the 'Cooling period' mentioned therein.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is absolutely no fault or lapses on the part of the petitioner in taking appropriate steps in accordance with law and the lapses/default if at all any, is on the part of the appellate authority, for having considered and passed appropriate orders on time. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the concerned Circular has already been declared as 'non-est' by various High Courts including as per the decision in Mangalam Cement Ltd. V. Superintendent, Central Excise Kota (rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.1624 of 2013 & connected cases). The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court as well, as to the scope of the said Circular.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the standing counsel for the 6th respondent.
WP(c). No. 28356 of 2014 3
4. During the course of hearing it is sated that, the final hearing of the matter is already over and that orders are awaited. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P5 appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. Coercive proceedings if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps.
Disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn