2015 (8) TMI 1075 - HC - Central Excise

Challenge to stay order - Held that - provisions of Section 35-C(2A) have been held to be mandatory by this Court and, therefore, in any case the Tribunal can grant an interim order which can travel beyond 365 days which is the maximum limit fixed under Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - interim order granted by the Tribunal shall not contine beyond 365 days from the date it has been passed. We further clarify that, having regard to the interest of revenue, the Tribunal may make an attempt to decide the appeal at the earliest possible, preferably within six months - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Barco Electronics Systems Ltd. 2015 (5) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT followed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the maximum period of interim order.
2. Validity of extending the interim stay order beyond 365 days.
3. Judicial discretion of the Tribunal in granting interim stay orders.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limits the period of an interim order to a maximum of 365 days. The Department challenged the Tribunal's decision to extend the stay order beyond this statutory limit, arguing that the Tribunal is bound by the provisions of the Act. However, the Court clarified that the Tribunal has the authority to grant an interim order that exceeds 365 days, as long as it is in the interest of justice and does not contravene any other legal principles.

2. The Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Barco Electronics Systems Ltd., where it was established that an assessee can file a fresh interim stay application just before or after the expiry of the 365-day period. This indicates that the Tribunal has the discretion to consider such applications even if the earlier interim order has lapsed due to the passage of time. The Court further emphasized that the interim order should not continue beyond 365 days from the date it was initially passed.

3. Additionally, the Court highlighted the importance of expeditious disposal of appeals by directing the Tribunal to make efforts to decide the appeal at the earliest, preferably within six months from the date of the judgment. This directive aims to balance the interests of both the assessee and the revenue authorities, ensuring timely resolution of legal disputes while upholding procedural fairness. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the appeal with these observations and directions, providing clarity on the permissible duration of interim orders and emphasizing the need for timely adjudication of appeals in excise matters.