2014 (5) TMI 832 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of Stay Order - 180 days has already lapsed from the date of stay order - Held that - In the context of insertion of sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Act provided that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order shall on the expiry of that period, stand vacated, observed that sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. In the present case, appeal was not disposed of within the stipulated period as specified in section 35C and therefore vacating the stay order amounts to punishing the assessee - Following the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Stay extended

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of stay order beyond stipulated period under section 35C(2A) of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Extension of Stay Order Application:
The assessee filed an application for an extension of Stay Order No. 1221/06, while the Revenue sought to vacate the stay order citing that 180 days had lapsed since the stay order was issued.

2. Legal Arguments:
The assessee's advocate referenced a Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex., Ahmedabad Vs Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the stay should be extended as the appeal had not been heard within the specified period. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of CCE Chennai I Vs SRF Ltd. and highlighted an amendment in section 35C(2A) of the Finance Act, 2013, suggesting no grounds for extending the stay order.

3. Judicial Consideration:
After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's observations regarding section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The Court emphasized that the provision should not punish the assessee for circumstances beyond their control, such as delays in Tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal noted the insertion of the third proviso in Section 35C(2A) by the Finance Act 2013, allowing for an extension of the stay period under certain conditions.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal concluded that since the appeal was not disposed of within the stipulated period as per section 35C, vacating the stay order would be unjust to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the decision of the Supreme Court was not considered in a previous Tribunal order relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application to vacate the stay order and allowed the extension of the stay until the appeal's disposal, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, judicial considerations, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the extension of the stay order beyond the stipulated period under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.