2007 (11) TMI 54 - AT - Central Excise

There is no requirement to pass any order extending stay when stay has already been granted Stay granted would remain valid till the final disposal of the appeal Serving demand notices during pendency will be treated as contempt of the law, warranting proceedings against the Dept

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of stay of recovery in pending appeals under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act; Interpretation of the stay order validity period under the First proviso to Sub-Section (2A) of Section 35C; Contempt proceedings against departmental authorities for enforcing demand notices during the pendency of appeals.

Analysis:

1. Extension of Stay of Recovery: The judgment addresses applications for extension of stay of recovery in pending appeals under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The applicants argued that during the pendency of an appeal, where a stay order is in force as per the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgment in a specific case, the Revenue cannot issue demand notices. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and an order by a Tribunal member in another case supporting the view that no order extending stay already granted is required, and such stay remains valid till the final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal agreed with this view, emphasizing the importance of preventing appeals from being rendered nugatory and the Tribunal's wide powers under Section 35C(1) to grant stays.

2. Interpretation of Stay Order Validity Period: The department contended that stay orders do not survive the 180-day period prescribed in the First proviso to Sub-Section (2A) of Section 35C, and if the appeal is not disposed of within this period, the stay order stands vacated. However, the Tribunal rejected this interpretation, stating that the Hon'ble High Court's ruling, which remains unchallenged, must be followed. The Tribunal clarified that no further orders are required, and the stay of recovery already granted will remain valid until the final disposal of the appeals.

3. Contempt Proceedings: The judgment warns that enforcing demand notices or issuing fresh ones during the pendency of appeals would be treated as contempt of the Tribunal, warranting appropriate proceedings against the departmental authorities. The Tribunal disposed of the applications and directed the Registry to inform all Chief Commissioners of Central Excise in Tamilnadu and Puducherry about the order for necessary action. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed and the Tribunal's stance on the extension of stay, interpretation of stay order validity, and consequences for violating the stay during pending appeals.