2004 (8) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of stay and early listing of the appeal.
2. Coercion by the department to pay the duty.
3. Applicability of the Tribunal's decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara regarding the power to extend the stay of recovery.
4. Interpretation of the stay order and its revival.

Extension of Stay and Early Listing of the Appeal:
The appellant sought an extension of stay and early listing of the appeal, citing the history of judicial proceedings. The Tribunal had initially allowed the appeal in 1998, but the Supreme Court later set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh decision. The department was allegedly coercing the appellants to pay the duty. The appellants relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara to argue for the extension of the stay of recovery. The Tribunal noted that the application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery was still pending and scheduled for a hearing on a specific date.

Coercion by the Department to Pay the Duty:
The department had issued a demand notice to the appellants, stating that the stay of recovery had been vacated by the operation of a specific provision of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contended that the Tribunal had the power to extend the stay of recovery, citing the decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara. The Tribunal acknowledged the demand notice but clarified that the stay of recovery would continue until the disposal of the application for waiver of predeposit.

Applicability of Tribunal's Decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara:
The appellants relied on the Tribunal's decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara to argue for the extension of the stay of recovery. They urged that the stay of recovery should be granted and the appeal be listed for early hearing. The Tribunal considered this argument but clarified that the application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery needed to be addressed separately.

Interpretation of the Stay Order and Its Revival:
The Tribunal clarified that the stay order had not been automatically revived with the revival of the appeal. The application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery was still pending and scheduled for a hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that until the disposal of that application, there would be a stay of recovery for the sake of justice.