2013 (12) TMI 1396 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of stay Held that - ITAT cannot extend stay orders u/s 35C (2A) or Section 129B of the Central Excise Act 1944 and Customs Act 1962 ITAT cannot extend the stay orders which have been granted by the Tribunal due to the specific provisions of Section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act - Following JP. Transformers Versus CCE Kanpur 2013 (8) TMI 709 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Tribunal has got an authority to extend the stay orders which have been passed thus extension for stay granted decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of stay orders under Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of the law regarding the authority of the Tribunal to extend stay orders.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addresses the issue of extension of stay orders under Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved a dispute where the departmental representative argued against granting extensions based on a High Court judgment regarding the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The representative contended that similar provisions in customs and excise laws should be interpreted in the same manner. However, the appellant's counsel cited a precedent from the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in a different case, emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to extend stay orders. The Tribunal analyzed the High Court's decision on the Income Tax Act and the Apex Court's ruling in a separate case, concluding that the issue at hand pertained to customs and excise laws, not income tax. Relying on the Principal Bench's decision and the Apex Court's precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the department's proposition and allowed the extensions requested by the assessees.

The Tribunal highlighted that the High Court's decision on the Income Tax Act did not alter the Tribunal's authority to extend stay orders under customs and excise laws. The Tribunal differentiated the issues concerning time limits in income tax cases from the extension of stay orders under customs and excise laws. By referencing the Principal Bench's decision and the Apex Court's judgment, the Tribunal reaffirmed its power to grant extensions of stay orders, maintaining consistency with established legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the department's argument and approved the extensions sought by the assessees.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the applications for extension of stay orders based on the legal precedent established by the Larger Bench decision in the case of IPCL Vs. CCE, Vadodara. The Tribunal extended the stay for an additional six months or until the appeals were disposed of, whichever occurred earlier. This decision reinforced the Tribunal's authority to grant extensions of stay orders under customs and excise laws, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles in such matters.