2014 (11) TMI 699 - 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:
Condonation of delay in filing extension application before the Bench, jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days, requirement of passing a speaking order while extending stay.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an extension application before the Bench. The application was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the extension application for stay granted by the Bench was taken up for disposal. The Honorable High Court framed questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days and the necessity of passing a speaking order in such cases. The High Court held that the CESTAT has the power to extend stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on a Supreme Court decision. The High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to pass detailed speaking orders in each case while considering extension applications for stay.

Regarding the requirement of passing a speaking order while extending stay, the High Court emphasized that the Tribunal must subjectively satisfy itself that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the appellant and that the appellant has cooperated in early disposal. The Tribunal is required to consider each application for extension of stay on its merits and pass a reasoned order. The High Court clarified that the Tribunal cannot extend stay indefinitely and must review the situation every 180 days, with the appellant required to submit an application for extension each time. The Tribunal must prioritize appeals with stay orders and make efforts to dispose of them promptly.

In the specific case discussed in the judgment, the appellant argued that the case had not been listed for final disposal since the grant of stay in 2012 due to heavy workload. The High Court held that the extension sought by the appellant should be allowed, considering the circumstances. The Tribunal granted an extension of stay for a further period of 180 days. The judgment highlights the importance of passing speaking orders while extending stay and the need for timely disposal of appeals with stay orders to prevent undue delays.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal principles governing the extension of stay by the Appellate Tribunal and the requirements for passing reasoned orders in such matters to ensure fairness and efficiency in the adjudicative process.