2015 (1) TMI 270 - HC - Central Excise

Power of Tribunal to extend stay beyond the period of 365 days - Speaking order - Held that - as such on expiry of maximum period of 180 days, the assessee - orig. appellant is required to submit application for extension of stay each time after completion of 180 days and the learned Tribunal is required to consider the individual case and pass a speaking order whether the delay in not disposing the appeal is attributable to original appellant - assessee or not and if it is found that the original appellant - assessee in whose favour the stay has been granted is not cooperating in early disposal of appeal and/or the delay in disposing appeal is attributable to the original appellant - assessee, the learned Tribunal is not required to extend the stay more particularly considering the provisions of section 35C( 2A) of the Central Excise Act. - Matter remanded back to Tribunal Tribunal should consider decision of 2014 (7) TMI 738 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT to decided the matter - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenging the extension of stay granted by the Tribunal beyond 365 days from the date of initial stay, violation of statutory provisions, right to grant extension of stay, passing a nonspeaking common order for extension of stay.

Analysis:
The appellant, Revenue, challenged the Tribunal's order extending the stay granted during the pendency of appeals beyond the total period of 365 days from the initial grant date. The substantial questions of law raised included whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the stay beyond the statutory limit and whether the Tribunal was right in granting extensions in appeals pending for over four years post the amendment in the Central Excise Act. The Court referred to a previous judgment where it was held that if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the appellant and the appellant cooperated in early disposal without undue delay tactics, the Tribunal could extend the stay beyond 365 days. However, the Tribunal must review the situation every 180 days and pass a speaking order, ensuring the appeals are disposed of promptly. The Court directed the Tribunal to pass reasoned orders within two months for all matters remanded back, emphasizing the need for speaking orders while extending stays.

The Court reiterated that after 180 days, the appellant must submit an application for stay extension, and the Tribunal must assess each case independently to determine if the delay is due to the appellant. If the appellant is found to be causing delays, the Tribunal is not required to extend the stay, in line with the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The judgment reserved the liberty for the department to submit appropriate applications before the Tribunal, referencing the previous judgment for guidance. The Tribunal was instructed to consider such applications based on the observations made in the earlier decision.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the tax appeal, granting the department the liberty to submit applications for stay extensions, with the Tribunal instructed to pass speaking orders in line with the previous judgment. The judgment emphasized the need for timely disposal of appeals and the importance of assessing each case individually to determine the reason for delays before extending stays.