9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants but on account of pendency of a large number of older appeals and a critical supply/demand mismatch in the Tribunal - it is appropriate to grant extension of the stay orders earlier granted, to operate during the pendency of the appeals – Decided in favour of Assessee. - E/41939,41940/2013, E/00355/2012, E/00102/2009, E/00299,00103/2009 E/00114,00104/2009 - MISC. ORDER Nos. 42736-42740/2013 - Dated:- 21-11-2013 - Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R. Parthasarathy, Adv. and Shri . S. Venkatachalam, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, JC (AR) ORDER Per Justice G. Raghuram: These applications are preferred by the appellants in the several appeals, seeking extension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to such party, extend the period of stay to such further period as it considers appropriate, not exceeding 185 days; and in case the appeal is not so disposed of within a total period of 365 days from the date of the order referred to in the 1st proviso, the stay order shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand vacated. 4. In our considered view, the sunset clause legislatively enjoined, either by the 2nd proviso or the 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A), on a true and fair construction of these provisions would not derogate the inherent appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant an extension of stay, or disable the grant of a fresh order of stay, wherever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance for the above contention is placed on the order dated 05.06.2012 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Vs SRF Ltd. in E/MISC/527/2011. The Commissioner of Central Excise had filed an application for vacation of a stay (purportedly) granted on 08.08.2005 and of pre-deposit of about Rs.25 crores. The order further stated that since a large amount of duty was involved and the issues were of a recurring nature, the appeal should be posted for early hearing , in September, 2005. However, the order was extended on 03.02.2006 but no further extension was granted. In the circumstances, considering contentions advanced on behalf of Revenue, the Tribunal observed that since it had power to grant or extend stay only for a maximum of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
