2014 (11) TMI 697 - AT - Customs

Application for extension of stay already granted - Power of Tribunal to extend stay granted earlier beyond the total period of 365 days - Held that - After granting stay to the appellant on 20.03.2012 whenever the case was called for hearing the same was found to be linked to an appeal to the higher courts on the same issue. The adjournments granted in this case do not convey that the same were granted on account of any flimsy grounds taken by the appellant. There is no fault on the part of the appellant in the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly appellant can not be denied extension of stay earlier granted. The request made by the appellant is justified and extension of stay is accordingly granted to the appellant for a further period of 180 days - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Limited 2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Extension of stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Requirement of passing a speaking order while extending stay.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Hon'ble High Court, based on a Supreme Court decision, ruled that the CESTAT has the authority to extend the stay beyond 365 days as per Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal can extend the stay if satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not due to the appellant and that the appellant has cooperated in the early disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal must consider each case individually and pass a speaking order, ensuring the revenue department can challenge the extension if deemed necessary.

Issue 2:
Regarding the necessity of passing a speaking order while extending stay, the High Court observed that the previous orders by the Appellate Tribunal were non-speaking and non-reasoned. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the extension applications and issue detailed speaking orders in each case. The High Court directed the Tribunal to pass reasoned orders within two months, ensuring that the applications for extension of stay remain valid during this process. It was emphasized that the Tribunal must prioritize cases where stay has been granted and make efforts to dispose of appeals promptly, particularly when the stay is against the revenue.

In a subsequent hearing, the appellant argued that the case was never listed for final disposal, indicating no fault on their part. The Revenue department opposed further extension, citing statutory provisions. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was noted that the appellant had not caused delays, and the adjournments were linked to appeals in higher courts. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a further extension of stay for 180 days to the appellant, as justified by the circumstances.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the Tribunal's authority to extend stay beyond 365 days under specific conditions and highlighted the importance of passing reasoned orders while granting extensions. The decision aimed to ensure fair treatment of appellants while maintaining efficiency in the disposal of appeals, particularly those involving stays against the revenue.