1983 (2) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for stay regarding excise duty refund.
2. Interpretation of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Granting interim stay and scheduling further proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application for Stay Regarding Excise Duty Refund
The case involved an application for stay filed by M/s Atic Industries Ltd. regarding the excise duty refund of Rs. 33,25,832.35 that was refunded to the appellants in error. The appellants had been contesting their claim in various courts, and the refund was made based on a Supreme Court judgment. Subsequently, a demand of Rs. 33,25,832.38 was created by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The appellants argued that they would suffer undue hardship and irreparable loss if required to pay the amount immediately. The Excise authorities were pressing for immediate payment, while the Departmental Representative objected to the grant of stay, claiming no undue hardship to the appellants.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the court had inherent powers to grant stay even in cases like this, citing a Supreme Court judgment and a Patna High Court judgment to support their argument. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which required depositing the duty demanded or penalty levied pending appeal, unless undue hardship was proven. The Tribunal acknowledged the inherent powers of the court to grant stay and relied on the cited judgments to support their decision.

Issue 3: Granting Interim Stay and Scheduling Further Proceedings
After examining the case and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal granted an interim stay to the appellants for the repayment of the excise duty refund amount of Rs. 33,25,832.38 until a specified date. The Revenue authorities were directed not to recover the amount until that date. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for the grant of permanent stay till the disposal of the appeal on a specific date, with a warning that failure to appeal or seek adjournment without valid cause would result in the vacation of the stay petition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted an interim stay in favor of the appellants, citing inherent powers of the court and relevant legal precedents. The case highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of justice and revenue in matters of excise duty refunds and stay applications.