2015 (10) TMI 772 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of stay order - Held that - Tribunal in the case of M/s Haldiram India Pvt.Ltd. & others Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax - 2014 (10) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) , held that the Stay Order passed by the Tribunal may be extended after considering the necessary facts as it would authorize the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal for grant of such extension. - Appeal was not taken for hearing by the Tribunal as there is huge pendency of the appeals. It is noted that lot of appeals have already been listed and therefore it is difficult to take up the appeal hearing at this stage. - Stay extended.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of period of stay in appeal due to pending disposal and pendency of appeals.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking an extension of the period of stay granted in their appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in the case of M/s Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, where it was held that an extension of stay could be granted even after the initial period of 365 days if the appeal could not be disposed of due to reasons not attributable to the appellant. The Tribunal could grant an extension if satisfied that the appellant was ready for disposal of the appeal and had not engaged in any delaying tactics. The Tribunal directed the maintenance of a separate register to prioritize appeals where stay has been granted. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order disclosing the satisfaction of the Tribunal for granting such extension.

The applicant did not appear during the proceedings, while the Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the appellant had not taken necessary steps for the disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted the huge pendency of appeals, making it difficult to schedule the appeal for a hearing at that stage. Despite the absence of the applicant, the Tribunal granted an extension of stay until the disposal of the appeal, considering the circumstances of the case and the pendency of appeals. The miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted an extension of stay in the appeal due to the significant backlog of cases and the appellant's readiness for the disposal of the appeal. The decision was in line with previous judgments emphasizing the discretion of the Tribunal to grant such extensions based on the specific circumstances of each case. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the appellant and the need for timely disposal of appeals, considering the overall workload and pendency of cases in the Tribunal.