2003 (9) TMI 389 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Tribunal can grant stay beyond 180 days as per the newly inserted sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment involved a common issue of whether the Tribunal can grant stay beyond 180 days, as per the newly inserted sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal considered the legislative intent of the sub-section, which mandates disposal of appeals within 180 days of granting stay. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision regarding re-appointment restrictions under Article 164(4) of the Constitution to interpret the legislative intent. It was observed that granting extensions beyond 180 days would render the provision ineffective and go against the clear mandate. The Tribunal emphasized that legal restraints should not be ignored for convenience, suggesting urgent administrative and structural reforms to address the backlog of cases instead of bypassing the legal restriction.

The Tribunal highlighted the need for administrative reforms to address the backlog of cases, such as recruitment of additional members, filling vacancies, and out-of-turn hearings. It emphasized that the legislative intent of the sub-section could be fulfilled through such reforms, without bypassing the legal restraint on granting stay extensions beyond 180 days. The judgment clarified that the Tribunal does not have the power to extend stay beyond 180 days post the Finance Act, 2002 enactment, emphasizing adherence to legal constraints.

The judgment distinguished between the power to dispense with pre-deposit under Section 35F and the power to stay recovery under Section 35C. It noted that while the power to waive pre-deposit remains unaffected, the power to stay recovery is restricted by the sub-section (2A) of Section 35C. The Tribunal emphasized that the vires of the restriction imposed by the statute cannot be questioned by the Tribunal, as it is a creation of the same statute.

Additionally, the Tribunal referenced various decisions, including those of the Apex Court and High Courts, to support its interpretation of the legislative intent behind the sub-section. It rejected the notion of extending stay orders beyond 180 days and directed the Registry to prioritize the hearing of connected appeals promptly. The judgment also recommended sending a copy of the order to the Secretary, Revenue, to consider implementing suggested administrative and structural changes to facilitate the effective implementation of legislative amendments.