9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the balance amount shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal – application for extension of stay already granted allowed – Decided in favour of Assessee. - E/710, 711, 724, 725/2010, E/250/2009 - Misc. Order No.42558 to 42562/2013 - Dated:- 8-10-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das The applicant has filed these applications for extension of stay already granted vide Stay Order Nos. 68 to 71/2012 dated 1.2.2012 and 875/2009 dated 1.10.2009. 2. The learned AR raises a preliminary objection for extension of the stay orders. He submits that he has filed a written s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther drew the attention of the Bench the stay order dated 1.2.2012 passed in the present case wherein there is a direction that predeposit of the balance amount shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal. It is submitted that the contention of the learned AR is not acceptable in view of the direction of the Tribunal in the stay order. He also submits that the Tribunal earlier rejected the preliminary objection raised on the same issue in the case of PCS Technology Ltd. Vs. CCE, Puducherry vide Misc. Order No. 42134/2013 dated 12.7.2013. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the learned AR had raised the similar issue in the earlier occasion. The Tribunal in the case of PCS Technology Ltd. (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il the powers of the Tribunal to grant stay exceeding six months. 5. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench has by its decision reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 267 upheld the view impugned in this case. The decision of the Larger Bench has not been challenged by the Department being of the view that repeated special leave petition raising the same issue was unnecessary. 6. The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first proviso. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned AR. The case law relied upon by the learned AR is in the context of interpretation of statute. On the other hand, the case of Kumar Cotton Mills (supra) has direct application on the issue before us. 5. In the case of SRF Ltd. (supra), the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills (supra) was not placed before the Bench. We have also noted that in the present case there is a direction that predeposit of the balance amount shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the learned AR is rejected. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous applications for extension of stay already gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
