2015 (8) TMI 1104 - HC - Central Excise

Challenge to Stay order - Tribunal granted stay for unlimited period - Held that - In the Commissioner Central Excise Vs. M/s Magnum Ventures Ltd. in 2015 (8) TMI 1075 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , this Court clarified that the interim order granted by the Tribunal will not continue beyond 365 days from the date it has been passed and has further clarified that after expiry of 365 days the assessee would be at liberty to make a fresh application for extension of the interim order. - Tribunal directed to decide the appeal within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Granting of an unlimited stay period by the Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Clarification on the shelf life of interim orders passed by the Tribunal.
4. Direction to the Tribunal for timely disposal of appeals.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order granting an unlimited stay period, contending that it was a manifest error as it did not consider the provisions of Section 35-C(2A) of the Act. The counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect, and the stay order should have been limited in duration.

2. The counsel for the assessee argued that although the Tribunal's order did not explicitly mention a limited duration for the stay, the statute indicates that any interim order has a shelf life of 365 days. The assessee treated the stay as limited to 180 days and applied for an extension, which was pending before the Tribunal. This interpretation was supported by the provisions of Section 35-C(2A) of the Act.

3. Referring to a previous judgment in Commissioner Central Excise Vs. M/s Magnum Ventures Ltd., the Court clarified that interim orders by the Tribunal cannot extend beyond 365 days from the date of issuance. The Court further stated that after the expiry of 365 days, the assessee could apply for a fresh extension of the interim order. In light of this decision, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal within six months from the date of the order.

4. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must adhere to the provisions of Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, which limits the life of interim orders. It was specified that upon expiry or just before it, the assessee could file a fresh stay application, which the Tribunal must consider and decide after hearing all concerned parties. This direction aimed to ensure timely resolution of appeals and compliance with the statutory provisions.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, the clarification on the duration of interim orders, and the directions given for the disposal of appeals in a timely manner while adhering to the statutory framework.