2005 (1) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Extension of stay beyond 180 days, Jurisdiction of Tribunal to grant stay, Disregard of Tribunal's order by Assistant Commissioner

Extension of Stay Beyond 180 Days:
The appellant sought an extension of stay beyond 180 days from the date of the initial order of the stay. Citing the case of IPCL v. Commr. of Central Excise, Vadodara and the judgment in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., the appellant argued that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant stay even after the expiry of 180 days. The Hon'ble Apex Court also clarified that the power of the Tribunal to grant stay exceeding six months is not curtailed by any stipulated period. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, granted the extension of stay originally given by its order dated 1-4-2005, extending it till further orders.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal to Grant Stay:
The Tribunal emphasized that it has the authority to grant stay beyond 180 days, especially when the order specifies that the stay is available until further orders. The Tribunal expressed disapproval of the Assistant Commissioner's action of vacating the stay order and adjusting the amount on the grounds that the appeal had not been decided within 180 days from the date of the initial Stay Order. The Tribunal reiterated that various courts, including the Apex Court, have affirmed the Tribunal's power to grant stay beyond 180 days. The Tribunal deemed the Assistant Commissioner's actions as a disregard for the Tribunal's order and directed the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Respondent Commissioner to appear and explain their stance.

Disregard of Tribunal's Order by Assistant Commissioner:
The Tribunal considered the Assistant Commissioner's adjustment of the amount and vacating of the stay order as a blatant disregard for the Tribunal's authority. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to override the Tribunal's order and emphasized the importance of upholding the Tribunal's decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Respondent Commissioner to appear and clarify their actions, emphasizing the seriousness of disregarding the Tribunal's orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal reaffirmed its authority to grant stay beyond 180 days, condemned the Assistant Commissioner's actions as a disregard for its orders, and called for an explanation from the concerned officials to uphold the integrity of the Tribunal's decisions.