9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (2004 (6) TMI 52 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) cannot be faulted. However we should not be understood as holding that any latitude is given to the Tribunal to extend the period of stay except on good cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed of by reason of the fault of the Tribunal for reasons not attributable to the assessee. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. : E/12459/2014 - ORDER No. A/11571/2014 - Dated:- 1-9-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. It appears that the adjudicating authority is of the opinion that the said stay order shall not be considered as a valid stay order in view of the amended provisions of 35C (2A) of CEA. To rebut the argument of the adjudicating authority, the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Limited (supra) contending that the stay orders issued in their case pertains to the period prior to the amendment introduced in the statue and thus shall not be applicable in their case. I find that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the said case of Kumar Cotton Mills has found under Para 32 that; 32. We summarise the findings as follows : (1) Where the Tribunal has made an order of stay prior to the amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessees who, having got an interim order in their favour, seek to continue the interim order by delaying the disposal of the proceedings. Thus, depriving the Revenue not only of the benefit of the assessed value but also a decision on points which may have impact on other pending matters. 4. The Tribunal which was then known as Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) came to the conclusion that the amendment did not affect stay orders which were passed prior to the date of coming into force of the amendment and also held that the amendment did not in any way curtail the powers of the Tribunal to grant stay exceeding six months. 5. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the matter was referred to a L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same shall continue to be valid till the disposal of the appeal. It is altogether a different matter that the appeal is still pending after 19 years, which is not disputed as the department has approached Hon'ble CESTAT vide Miscellaneous applications filed in December 2012 for early hearing in the said matters. Now that since the matter stands settled by apex court, effectively no recovery/ appropriation of the amount confirmed under the above referred OIOs can be made from the appellant as long as the said stay orders are not modified/ set-aside by the Tribunal itself or the higher appellate forum for which the department is at its liberty to approach the proper forum. I therefore, do not fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
