9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Bombay. Learned Advocate Shri G.R. Gagrat on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the appellants have filed a revision petition dated 19-5-81 to the Government of India under the then Section 36 of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and this petition has now to be transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P(2) ibid and it has to be treated as an appeal filed before the Tribunal. He has, therefore, submitted that the present stay application has been properly filed with reference to that appeal. The Learned Advocate has, further, submitted that the amount of duty demanded exceeds ₹ 4 crores and the same has been arrived at on the basis of conjectures. Since the basis for making the demand was incorrect and impro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stay already as the present Tribunal has to be treated as a successor in office to the Government of India exercising the powers of revision under the old Section 36 of the Act. He has, further, submitted that the appellants are a Central Government undertaking and no financial hardship can be caused to them as envisaged in terms of Section 35-F of the Act. Shri Jain has, therefore, contended that firstly the present stay application does not lie as the same has been rejected already and secondly that there will be no financial hardship warranting the stay. He has pointed out that the duty due has accrued for the past several years and it should be paid without further delay. Shri Jain, has, therefore, opposed the grant of stay to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition in terms of Section 35F. Besides, there cannot be any bar that the stay when once rejected cannot be agitated and decided again because the grant of stay is depending on the conditions specified under Section 35F. In other words, it is possible that when the first stay application is decided against the appellants, their financial position might not have justified the grant of stay; and if thereafter the financial position deteriorates, the appellants are free to come up for stay once again and the Tribunal can given the stay on a second application if satisfied in the matter. However, this is not the case in the present instance the power of stay lies with the Tribunal even when its predecessor in office or the Tribunal has rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
