9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1215 - AT - Central ExciseExtension of stay order - Held that - Any stay order passed by the Tribunal, if it is in force beyond 07/08/2014, it would continue till the disposal of the appeals and there is no need for filing any further applications for extension of orders granting stay either fully or partially - Decision in the case of M/s. Venketeshwara Filaments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CCE & ST., Vapi 2014 (12) TMI 227 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD followed - Stay extended.
Issues:
Extension of stay on appeal, interpretation of Section 35C(2A) of the CEA, 1944, validity of stay orders beyond a specific date. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai addresses the issue of extension of stay on appeals and the interpretation of Section 35C(2A) of the CEA, 1944. The appellants sought an extension of stay, claiming their appeals had not been disposed of through no fault of theirs. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was observed that there is no provision for further applications for extension of stay, and the Tribunal lacks the power to hear and dispose of such applications post a specific date. However, it was clarified that the omission of certain provisos does not render the stay order lapsed. The Tribunal emphasized that appeals need to be disposed of within three years, and stay orders granted by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the CEA, 1944 remain valid. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that any stay order in force beyond a specified date would continue until the appeal is disposed of, eliminating the need for filing additional applications for extension of stay. In the case at hand, as the stay was in force beyond the mentioned date, it would persist until the appeal's disposal. Consequently, the applications for extension of stay were disposed of based on the principles established in the CESTAT judgment. The judgment provides clarity on the continuity and validity of stay orders, ensuring that appellants are not unduly burdened by the need for repeated extensions.
|
