9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l could not be disposed of, not on account of any delay tactics adopted by the petitioners/appellants but on account of the pendency of a large number of much older appeals. It is ordered that the waiver of pre-deposit and subject to the conditions stipulated therein, granted by the order dated 20-9-2012 (which have been fulfilled), shall operate during the pendency of the appeal. - We further order stay of all further proceedings for realisation of the balance adjudicated liability, for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/687-688/2012 - Misc. Order Nos. ST/50461-50462/2014-CU(DB) - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTAT, the entire object and purpose [of insertion of sub-section (2A) in Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944] would be defeated, if the waiver of pre-deposit were granted indefinitely; and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434 (S.C.) cannot be interpreted to authorise the Tribunal to extend waiver of pre-deposit indefinitely. The High Court disposed of Revenue s appeal with directions to the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously and if possible within six months from the date of the extension dated 3-6-2013 (the impugned order of extension) and held that waiver of pre-deposit would be valid until six months from its last extension dated 3-6-2013. 5. According to the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax), to this Tribunal. Creation of six new benches for the Tribunal is a process underway. In the forceable future, subject to radical addition to the strength of this Tribunal, there appears no possibility to dispose of every appeal within 365 days. The ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. clearly enunciates the principle that where an appeal could not be expeditiously disposed of within the time assumed by the legislation [Sec. 35C(2A)] to be the normal time-frame, not on account of any protractive strategies of an assessee but on account of pendency of a huge backlog, the Tribunal is not denuded of the power, authority or jurisdiction to extend the stay or in any case to grant a stay afresh. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an expressed but an inherent power. The second proviso to Section 35C(2A) enjoins that the operation of the stay initially granted shall stand vacated if an appeal is not disposed of within a period of 180 days from the date of grant of stay. The third proviso authorises extension of a stay initially granted, beyond the period of 180 days but not extending beyond a period of 365 days from the date of the initial grant of stay; and that after a period of 365 days, the stay order shall stand vacated. 10. While the above legislative provisions clearly signal the need for caution and circumspection while extending a stay granted, are perhaps not to be interpreted as inhibiting grant of extension or of a fresh grant of stay, after the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
