- (1.) ISSUE notice. Copy of the petition has been served in the office of Mr. Sarvesh Jain. Counsel for petitioner submits that self same controversy came to be examined & decided by the Coordinate Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1891/2013 (Manglam Cement Limited v. The Superintendent, Central Excise Range -III Kota & Ors.) & Other connected petitions vide judgment dated 1 -3 -2013 [ : 2013 (290) E.L.T. 353 (Raj.) : 2013 (30) S.T.R. 225 (Raj.)] and as regards scope of circular dated 1 -1 -2013, observed as under: In the wake of the above, we hold that the impugned circular dated 1 -1 -2013 obligating the concerned authorities to initiate recovery proceedings on the expiry of period as mentioned therein so far as it relates to the situations where appeals with stay applications have been filed, but not stay had been granted and the stay applications had been kept pending for reasons not attributable in any manner whatsoever to the petitioners/assessees and resultantly, no interim relief had been granted, is non est. Consequently, no coercive steps for recovery of the demands vis   -vis such petitioners would be initiated. Instead, the respondents would ensure that such appeals and interim applications are heard as contemplated by the Act at the earliest and preferably within a period of three weeks here from. The petitioners would unfailingly cooperate with the forums to meet the time frame fixed. It is made clear that this Court has not offered its comment on the merits of the appeals and/or interim applications filed and that the concerned forums would take appropriate decisions thereon without in any manner influenced by this determination. The petitioners are thus allowed to the extent as indicated herein above. A copy of this order be placed in all the files.
(2.) COUNSEL further submits that other connected petition DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2113/2013 (M/s, Bhatia & Company v. Union of India & Ors.) came to be examined & decided by the Court vide order dated 4 -3 -2013 [ : 2013 (293) E.L.T. 485 (Raj.)] in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench, referred to supra and the Court while disposing of the petition (supra) directed the appellate authority/CESTAT to hear and decide the stay application of the petitioner as early as possible but preferably within a period of eight weeks of their appearance before the authority. However, at the same time, the respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps for recovery of the demand during the said period. The fact (supra) has not been controverted by the counsel appearing for respondents, Mr. Sarvesh Jain as regards the orders passed, referred to supra.
(3.) IN the light of the orders (supra), the present petition stands disposed of with direction to the appellate authority/CESTAT to hear and decide the stay application of the petitioners as early as possible but preferably within a period of eight weeks of their appearance. We further direct that in the meantime, no coercive steps for recovery of the demand shall be initiated. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned appellate authority/CESTAT where the appeals are pending on 3 -10 -2013 and their presence be recorded in the proceedings.;