9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 992 - AT - Service TaxExtension of stay order - Held that - The power to grant stay has not been expressly provided in the Statute. However, power to grant stay is an inherent power as has been held in the case of Shri Ram Narayan Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Vs. CCE, Surat-I 2009 (11) TMI 784 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . This inherent power to grant stay has been expressly recognised even by the Hon ble Supreme Court as is evident from para 6 of the judgement in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murthi 2005 (4) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . - 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. - delay in taking up these appeals is not attributable to the appellants - Stay extended.
Issues:
- Extension of stay granted by the Tribunal - Abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Inherent power of the Tribunal to grant stay Extension of Stay Granted by the Tribunal: The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking an extension of the stay granted earlier by the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that despite the previous Stay Order, the Revenue was pressuring for recovery, necessitating an extension of the Stay Order. The Departmental Representative argued that Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had been abolished, thereby implying that the Tribunal no longer had the authority to grant an extension of stay. Abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal examined the Departmental Representative's contention regarding the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Act. It was clarified that the said section did not grant the power to grant stay but rather imposed restrictions on the Tribunal's ability to extend stay beyond a specified period. The abolition of this section did not diminish the Tribunal's power to grant stay. Even before the abolition of Section 35C(2A), the Tribunal had the authority to extend stay beyond 365 days in specific circumstances, as established in the case of Halidram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative's argument and extended the stay granted earlier due to delays not attributable to the appellants. Inherent Power of the Tribunal to Grant Stay: The Tribunal emphasized that the power to grant stay was not explicitly provided in the Statute but was considered an inherent power. Citing previous judgments, including the case of Shri Ram Narayan Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Vs. CCE, Surat-I and CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murthi, it was established that the Tribunal possessed inherent power to grant stay. The Tribunal's inherent power to grant stay was not affected by the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal's authority to extend stay was reaffirmed, ensuring that the delay in processing the appeals did not adversely impact the appellants, leading to the extension of the stay granted earlier. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the extension of stay granted by the Tribunal, the impact of the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Tribunal's inherent power to grant stay, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and decisions made in this case.
|
