9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 963 - AT - CustomsExtension of stay order - Held that - Power to grant stay has not been expressly provided in the Statute. However power to grant stay is an inherent power as has been held in the case of Shri Ram Narayan Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Vs. CCE, Surat-I 2009 (11) TMI 784 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . This inherent power to grant stay has been expressly recognised even by the Hon ble Supreme Court as is evident from para 6 of the judgement in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murthi 2005 (4) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - sub section did not grant any power to grant stay; it only sought to put fetters on the power of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond a certain period. Consequently its abolition can only have an effect that fetters which the said sub-section sought to place on the Tribunal with regard to the duration beyond which CESTAT could not grant stay no longer exist. In other words, with the abolition of Section 35C(2A) ibid with effect from 06.08.2014, the power of the Tribunal with regard to grant of stay in no way got attenuated. - having regard to the fact that the delay in taking up these appeals is not attributable to the appellants, extend the stay granted to operate during the pendency thereof. - Stay granted.
Issues:
Extension of stay granted by Tribunal under Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking an extension of the stay granted by the Tribunal earlier, as the Revenue was insisting on recovery despite the Stay Order. The Departmental Representative argued that Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been abolished, removing the Tribunal's power to grant an extension of stay. However, it was highlighted that the power to grant stay is inherent, as recognized by the Supreme Court in various judgments. The Tribunal has the inherent power to grant stay, even though not expressly provided in the Statute. The abolition of Section 35C(2A) did not affect the Tribunal's power to grant stay, as it only imposed limitations on the duration of stay. The Tribunal had previously extended stay beyond the specified period in cases where the delay was not due to the appellants. Therefore, the contention that the Tribunal lost its power to extend stay was rejected, and the stay was extended during the pendency of the appeals. This judgment clarifies that the Tribunal has the inherent power to grant stay, even though not explicitly provided in the Statute. The abolition of a specific section did not diminish the Tribunal's authority to extend stay, as it only restricted the duration of stay. The Tribunal's power to extend stay was upheld based on previous judgments and the principle that the Tribunal possesses incidental and ancillary powers necessary to effectively exercise its statutory powers. The decision ensures that appellants are not unfairly penalized due to delays in appeal proceedings beyond their control, and the stay was extended considering the circumstances.
|
