- (1.) These four matters involving similar and akin issues have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The writ petitions (CWP No. 13098/2013 and CWP No. 13775/2013) came to be filed by the respective assessees in the background of the fact that under the demand notices by the concerned Central Excise Officers, they were called upon to deposit the amount of duty, allegedly due under the Orders-in-Original passed in the respective cases on 26-10-2012 and 23-11-2012.
(2.) In essence, the submissions in both the writ petitions had been that the respective appeals alongwith stay applications filed by the petitioners-assessees before CESTAT remained pending and the matters were adjourned on several dates for one reason or another like those of non-availability of Bench or of not reaching but without any fault on the part of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the impugned demand notices had been issued with reference to Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX : , dated 1-1-2013 although the said circular had already been declared non est by this Court and the coercive recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned Circular had been prohibited while directing the respondents to ensure hearing of the appeals and interim applications at the earliest. The decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in DBCWP No. 1891/2013 - Manglam Cement Ltd. v. The Superintendent, Central Excise Range-II, Kota & Ors., 2013 290 ELT 353was also referred.
(3.) After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-assessees, this Court was forced to express rather its dismay that the respondents, with impunity, were issuing such demand notices with reference to the very same Circular, despite the same having been declared non est. In CWP No. 13775/2013, it was additionally noticed that even a representation made by the petitioner-assessee was rejected with reference to the very same Circular.;