9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 509 - AT - Service TaxExtension of stay order - Extension of the further period of 365 days - Held that - Perusal of Section 35C (2A) clearly reveals that the said sub-section did not grant any power to grant stay; it only sought to put fetters on the power of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond a certain period. Consequently its abolition can only have an effect that fetters which the said sub-section sought to place on the Tribunal with regard to the duration beyond which CESTAT could not grant stay no longer exist. In other words, with the abolition of Section 35C(2A) ibid with effect from 06.08.2014, the power of the Tribunal with regard to grant of stay in no way got attenuated. Even during the existence of sub-section 35C(2A) of the Act (i.e. prior to 06.08.2014), the Tribunal in the case of Halidram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2014 (10) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) held that the Tribunal had power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days in cases where appellant was ready and willing to pursue the appeal, but the Tribunal owing to the older pendency was unable to take up the appeal. - Stay extended.
Issues:
Extension of stay granted by the Tribunal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking an extension of the stay granted by the Tribunal earlier, as the Revenue was insisting on recovery despite the Stay Order. The Departmental Representative argued that after the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal no longer had the power to grant an extension of stay. However, the Tribunal noted that the power to grant stay is inherent, as recognized in previous judgments. The Tribunal referenced the case of Shri Ram Narayan Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Vs. CCE, Surat-I and the judgment in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murthi to establish the inherent power of the Tribunal to grant stay. The Tribunal highlighted that even though Section 35C(2A) did not expressly grant the power to grant stay, its abolition did not diminish the Tribunal's authority in this regard. The Tribunal cited the case of Halidram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi, where it was held that the Tribunal could extend stay beyond the specified period if the delay was not due to the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative's contention and extended the stay granted earlier to operate during the pending appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to grant stay was inherent and not dependent on the existence of a specific statutory provision. In conclusion, the Tribunal reaffirmed its inherent power to grant stay, even after the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment clarified that the Tribunal's authority to extend stay was not affected by the removal of the specific provision, emphasizing that the power to grant stay was essential for effective adjudication of appeals.
|
