2014 (12) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of stay order - Whether from the initial grant of stay and extension thereof, which is in force beyond 7.8.2014, whether any application is required to be considered by the Bench for extending stay order; on the fact of omissions of 1st, 2nd and 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - stay order passed by this Tribunal, if it is in force beyond 7.8.2014, it would continue till the disposal of the appeals and there is no need for filing any further applications for extension orders granting stay either fully or partially. - Following decision of Krishna Processors (2012 (11) TMI 954 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd (2000 (2) TMI 823 - Supreme Court of India) - Application disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of stay order under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act 1944 post-amendment.

Analysis:
The appellants sought an extension of stay order beyond the expiration date, arguing that the Finance Act of 2014 omitted the provisos to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The appellants contended that no further applications for extension were required post-omission, relying on legal precedents like the Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd case and the Krishna Processors case. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed, stating that an indefinite stay was not intended post-omission and cited the Krishna Processors case for protection of accrued liabilities. The Tribunal analyzed the issue in light of the amendments and legal arguments presented.

The Tribunal examined the pre-amendment provisions of Section 35C(2A) and the subsequent omission of the provisos by the Finance Act of 2014. It concluded that the omission removed the requirement for further applications for extension of stay orders. The Tribunal highlighted that the initial stay order would not lapse post-omission, and stay orders granted by the Tribunal would remain in force until appeal disposal. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the Krishna Processors case, emphasizing the protection of rights under the amended provisions.

Referring to the Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd case, the Tribunal emphasized the legal principles governing the continuation of proceedings post-amendment or omission of rules. It underscored that when a statute provision is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, pending proceedings may not continue, and fresh proceedings may be initiated under new provisions. The Tribunal clarified that liabilities accrued under the omitted provisions would not be saved, and any actions must align with the regular provisions of the Act. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles outlined in the judgments cited.

Based on the legal precedents and the analysis of the amended provisions, the Tribunal held that stay orders beyond 7.8.2014 would persist until appeal disposal without the need for further extension applications. The Tribunal disposed of the applications accordingly, affirming the continuation of stay orders post-omission as per the legal framework. The judgment provided clarity on the extension of stay orders under the amended Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act 1944, ensuring compliance with the revised statutory provisions.