2015 (10) TMI 701 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty, penalty and interest - Extension of stay granted - Revenue initiated recovery of duty - Held that - traversing the controversy raised namely the nature of proviso to Section 35C (2A) of the Act is academic as admittedly an appeal is pending before the Tribunal. Tribunal directed to decide the appeal within three months the parties putting in appearance on 14.01.2015. Order dated 29.04.2014 shall remain in force for a period of three months - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of proviso to Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the extension of stay beyond 360 days pending appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a letter/order demanding duty, penalty, and interest passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Malerkotla. The petitioner's counsel argued that an appeal was pending adjudication before the Tribunal, which had granted a stay order. However, the respondents relied on the proviso to Section 35C (2A) of the Act, claiming that the Tribunal cannot extend the stay beyond 360 days. The petitioner contended that the proviso should be interpreted as granting the Tribunal the power to extend the stay beyond the specified period.

In response, the respondents' counsel argued that the proviso to Section 35C (2A) was mandatory and could not be interpreted or curtailed to limit the revenue's power to recover dues. They asserted that the stay order had ceased to operate, allowing the recovery of duty, penalty, and interest. After hearing both parties, the Court deemed the controversy regarding the nature of the proviso as academic, given the pending appeal before the Tribunal. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal within three months, with the parties required to appear on a specified date. The Court also clarified that the order dated 29.04.2014 would remain in force for a specific period from the mentioned date.