9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal grants stay, in the absence of either the appellant or respondent applying for adjournments without justifiable cause with a view to delay the hearing, the Tribunal considering the duty on it is bound to hear and dispose of the appeal within 180 days - The proviso must be, to avoid being declared unconstitutional, be read to mean that it applies when the hearing of the appeal within 180 days could not be taken up on account of the persistent conduct or act of the appellant - Proviso cannot be read to defeat the vested right of appeal of an appellant - as nothing has been brought to our attention that it was on account of the acts of the petitioner that the appeal could not be heard, the relief sought for by the petitioner in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of such order : Provided further that if such appeal is not disposed of within period specified in the first proviso, the stay order shall, on the expiry of that period, stand vacated." It is therefore, submitted that considering the second proviso to the said sub-section the stay order stands vacated by operation of law if the appeal filed under section 35B(1) is not disposed of within one hundred and eighty days. Section 2A was introduced by Act 20 of 2002 with effect from 11th May, 2002. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is nothing on record to show that the appeal could not be heard on account of any act on the part of the petitioners herein. The Tribunal itself, inspite of the fact that section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the time specified. The reasoning of the Tribunal expressed in the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra) cannot be faulted. However, we should not be understood as holding that any latitude is given to the Tribunal to extend the period of stay except on good cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed of by reason of the fault of the Tribunal for reasons not attributable to the assessee." 8. Relying on the said judgment, this Court in the case of Narang Overseas P. Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others 2007 295 ITR 22 (Bom) in respect of similar provision under the I.T. Act had applied the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants stay, in the absence of either the appellant or respondent applying for adjournments without justifiable cause with a view to delay the hearing, the Tribunal considering the duty on it is bound to hear and dispose of the appeal within 180 days. If it has granted stay and does not hear the appeal within 180 days then, there is no reason why the stay should not continue till such time the appeal is heard and disposed of in the absence of any failure on part of the appellant. The proviso must be to avoid being declared unconstitutional be read to mean that it applies when the hearing of the appeal within 180 days could not be taken up on account of the persistent conduct or act of the appellant. On the facts of this case, as nothing has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
