9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed liability. Orders of stay and waiver of pre-deposit were granted earlier and for the reasons recorded in each of those orders. The present applications, for extension of stay are filed since operation of the stay orders had expired in terms of the 2nd and 3rd pvosisos to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The 2nd proviso to Section 35C (2A) came to considered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T.434 (S.C.). The apex court pointed out that a provision for plenary eclipse of an order of stay, on the expiry of a particular period (in the context where an appeal preferred by an aggrieved assessee in exercise of an appellate r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is occasioned on account of factors intrinsic to the institutional arrangement or design but not attributable to any protractive strategies of an assessee. This inference as to the scope of the 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) is compelling and is a logical corollary of ratio of the judgment in Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 5. A similar view is adopted in passing orders in Misc. Order dated 08.10.2013 in E/MISC/411052-411058/2013 and several other orders of the Tribunal, in other miscellaneous applications. 6. Learned departmental representatives would strenuously urge that since the 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) specifically declares an eclipse of the stay order after the specified period, there is no power to grant extension. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 03.02.2006 also having outlived the duration of six months; the application filed by Revenue for vacating the stay was infructuous; and was rejected. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that extension of stay cannot be granted. It has merely recorded the futility of a Revenue application for vacation of a non-existent stay. It also requires to be noticed that no stay of realization of the adjudicated liability was granted by the order dated 08.08.2005 nor was any order of stay extended by the order dated 03.02.2006. What appears to have been granted was a waiver of pre-deposit. An order of waiver of pre-deposit granted under provisions of Section 35F does not, either expressly or by any compelling implication, hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
