9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of 365 days earlier granted in those appeals, by following decisions of the High Courts of Karnataka and Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. and CIT-II vs. Maruti Suzuki Limited, respectively Following the High Court judgments we concluded that CESTAT had no jurisdiction to extend operation of a stay beyond the period of 365 days of the initial grant, in view of provisions of the 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The present applications seek extension of stay beyond the period of 365 days from the initial grant of stay. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the several appellants, in particular Shri B.L , Narasimhan , Sh. Ajay Agarwal , Sh. Prabhat Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 254(2A) of the 1961 Act. It is also contended that judgments of the Karnataka and the Delhi High Courts in Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) nd Maruti Suzuki Limited (supra) do not provide appropriate guidance for interpretation of the distinct provision of Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act as amended in 2013. Appellants also refer to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chote Lal Virendra Kumar Jain. for the proposition that the principle enunciated in Kumar Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) continues to guide the interpretation of Section 35(2A) of the 1944 Act notwithstanding the legislative dynamics brought about by the Finance Act, 2013. 5. We find strong prima-facie case warranting reconsideration of the conclusion rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned DR Shri Govind Dixit submits that the decision of the Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki Limited was quoted with approval and followed by the Allahabad High Court in M/s Adobe Systems India Pvt Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr . (unreported judgment dated 05.05.2014 in Writ Tax No. 285 of 2014) and therefore there is no justification for reconsideration of the view taken by this Tribunal in its Miscellaneous Orders dated 10.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. We are not dissenting from the view expressed in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki Limited. We have only indicated (while referring the issue to the Larger Bench), that having regard to the difference in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
