2015 (9) TMI 1082 - HC - Central Excise

Extension of stay order - Held that - Tribunal being a creation of a Statute is bound by the provision under which it has been created. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to pass interim orders in teeth of statutory provision of Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, 1944. The Tribunal is bound to confine the interim orders to the period provided for under the said section i.e. 365 days and nothing beyond it. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (5) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held that the provision of Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, 1944 are mandatory in nature. - no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal insofar as it directs that the interim order would continue till the decision of the appeal must be read to mean that the interim order shall continue for a period of 365 days, in terms of Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, 1944 and nothing beyond it - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the duration of interim orders.
2. Authority of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to extend interim orders beyond the statutory limit.
3. Procedure for extension of interim orders and time-bound disposal of appeals.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically concerning the duration of interim orders granted by the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court has previously held that this provision is mandatory in nature. The Tribunal is obligated to adhere to the statutory limit of 365 days for interim orders.

2. The Tribunal, as a statutory body, is bound by the provisions under which it was established. In this context, the Tribunal does not possess the authority to extend interim orders beyond the prescribed 365-day limit as per Section 35-C(2A) of the Act. The High Court emphasizes that the Tribunal must confine interim orders within the statutory timeframe and cannot exceed it.

3. To address the situation where the interim order expires due to the passage of 365 days, the High Court provides a solution based on previous judgments. The assessee is permitted to file a fresh application for stay before the expiry of the 365-day period. If such an application is submitted, the Tribunal is directed to expedite the decision-making process, ideally within two weeks of receiving the application. This approach aims to prevent the assessee from facing coercive actions due to the expiration of the initial interim order.

4. Furthermore, the High Court sets a timeline for the Tribunal to resolve the pending excise appeals, urging for a swift resolution preferably within six months from the date of filing a certified copy of the order. This directive is intended to ensure the timely adjudication of appeals and prevent unnecessary delays in the legal process.

5. Ultimately, all five appeals are disposed of based on the aforementioned analysis and directions provided by the High Court. The judgment clarifies the legal obligations of the Tribunal regarding interim orders, emphasizes adherence to statutory provisions, and outlines a procedural framework for the extension and disposal of appeals within specified timelines.