2015 (7) TMI 708 - HC - Central Excise

Extension stay order - Non disposal of appeal - Additional Benches of the tribunal are not being created - Held that - The fact remains that there are a large number of appeals, which are pending before the Tribunal, which are not being disposed of on account of various reasons. Huge monies is involved. Assessees have been made liable to pay huge sum of money. Wherever a case is made out, the Tribunal passes an interim order and extension of the interim order becomes a necessity when the appeals are not being disposed of. Non-extension of the order under the garb of third proviso to Section 35-C(2A) of the Act will cause loss to the assessee. We find the Tribunals are extending stay orders because of the non-disposal of the appeal. The non-disposal of the appeals before the Tribunal is also on account that the Additional Benches are not being created. - Noticed issued to authorities as to why appeals are not disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the grant of stay orders by the Tribunal.
2. Delay in disposal of appeals by the Tribunal and the impact on the parties involved.
3. Non-creation of additional Benches of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal leading to pending appeals and financial implications.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the issue of the Tribunal's power to grant stay orders under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Central Excise Department challenged an order by the Tribunal granting unconditional stay, contending that such a stay was in violation of the statutory provisions. The Court noted that many appeals were filed against the Tribunal's stay orders, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the authority to provide unconditional stays or extend them beyond 365 days. The Court emphasized the need for adherence to the statutory framework regarding the duration and conditions of stay orders.

2. The Court addressed the delay in disposing of appeals by the Tribunal and its impact on the parties involved. While the Department sought a direction for expeditious appeal resolution, the Court observed that the delay was often due to various reasons such as workload, member availability, and non-creation of Benches. The Court highlighted the financial burden on the parties awaiting appeal decisions and emphasized the importance of timely adjudication to prevent undue hardship on the assessee.

3. Another crucial issue raised in the judgment pertains to the non-creation of additional Benches of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The absence of these Benches resulted in a backlog of pending appeals, causing financial implications for the parties involved. The Court took cognizance of the situation and directed the concerned authorities to provide explanations for the delay in creating the Benches and appointing additional members. The Court stressed the necessity of efficient tribunal functioning to ensure timely disposal of appeals and prevent unnecessary financial burdens on the parties.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of adherence to statutory provisions in granting stay orders, the need for timely disposal of appeals to prevent financial losses, and the importance of creating additional Benches to address the backlog of pending cases. The Court's directives to the relevant authorities aim to streamline the appeal process and mitigate the adverse effects of delayed adjudication on the parties involved.