9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 513 - HC - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Whether the Hon ble CESTAT erred in granting waiver of pre-deposit of assessed demand in favour of the respondents during pendency of the appeal thereby extending the period of stay beyond 365 days ignoring the recent amendment to section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made through enactment of Finance Bill, 2013 - Held that - Tribunal has noted that a waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay on the realisation of the adjudicated liability was granted by the Tribunal since a prima facie case was found in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has also observed that the appeal has not been disposed of only on account of the pendency of several older appeals and not on account of any delay on the part of the assessee. ends of justice would be met if the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today. The waiver of pre-deposit will continue to remain valid for a period of six months from date of this order - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Granting waiver of pre-deposit beyond 365 days during the pendency of an appeal. 2. Interpretation of Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the extension of stay orders. Analysis: Issue 1: Granting waiver of pre-deposit beyond 365 days The appeal by the Revenue challenges the grant of waiver of pre-deposit beyond 365 days during the pendency of the appeal. The Revenue contends that the waiver extended by the Tribunal ignored the recent amendment to Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, through the Finance Bill, 2013. The Tribunal had granted a waiver of pre-deposit and extended the stay on the adjudicated liability due to the pendency of several older appeals, not due to any delay by the assessee. The Division Bench of the High Court, in a similar case, emphasized that the waiver of pre-deposit cannot be granted indefinitely as it defeats the purpose of the statutory provisions. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within six months from the last extension date to ensure justice and validity of the waiver. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 35C (2A) regarding stay orders The Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the second proviso to Section 35C (2A) of the Act. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Tribunal can extend the stay order only on good cause and if satisfied that the delay was not due to the fault of the assessee. The purpose of the statutory provisions is to ensure timely disposal of appeals and prevent indefinite extension of stay orders. The Division Bench reiterated that the waiver of pre-deposit should not be granted indefinitely and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously within a specified timeframe to uphold the statutory intent. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal to grant a waiver of pre-deposit and extend the stay on the adjudicated liability, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of appeals within a specific timeframe. The Court's interpretation of Section 35C (2A) aligns with the statutory objective of ensuring timely resolution of appeals and preventing indefinite extensions of stay orders. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
