2014 (3) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of stay already granted - Revenue contends that after insertion of the third proviso to sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944, by Finance Act, 2013, the Tribunal should not extend the stay order - Held that - third proviso to Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inserted by Finance Bill, 2013, in the context of such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso of the said Section, which was inserted by Finance Bill, 2002 - Tribunal has power to extend stay after specified period - even after insertion of third proviso of sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Act, 1944 as the said proviso provides in case the appeal is not disposed of within the total period of three hundred and six-five days from the date of order referred to in the first proviso - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., AHMEDABAD Versus KUMAR COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. 2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Stay extended.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of stay order under Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of extending a stay order granted under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent argued that after the amendment of the Act by Finance Act, 2013, the Tribunal should not extend the stay order beyond the specified period. They relied on the insertion of the third proviso to sub-section (2A) of Section 35C. However, the applicant contended that the Tribunal could extend the stay order beyond the stipulated period based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Act and previous judicial decisions to reach a conclusion.

The Tribunal noted that sub-section (2A) of Section 35C was introduced in 2002, which mandated the disposal of appeals within a specified period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills emphasized that the Tribunal could extend the stay order if there was a valid reason beyond the control of the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the amendment should not be seen as punishing the assessees for matters beyond their control. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal supported this view, stating that the Tribunal could grant stay orders exceeding six months under certain circumstances.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the third proviso to Section 35C (2A) inserted by Finance Bill, 2013, did not restrict the Tribunal's power to extend the stay order after the specified period. They relied on the precedent set by the case of Kumar Cotton Mills, which allowed for the extension of stay orders based on good cause. The Tribunal found no merit in the respondent's argument and allowed the miscellaneous application for the extension of the stay order.

In summary, the judgment clarified that the Tribunal retained the authority to extend stay orders under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even after the introduction of the third proviso by the Finance Act, 2013. The decision was based on legal interpretations and precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for valid reasons beyond the control of the assessee to justify the extension of stay orders.