9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is justified and extension of stay is accordingly granted to the appellant for a further period of 180 days - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Limited [2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Extension of stay granted. - Appeal No. : C/119/2012 - ORDER No. M/14159-14160/2014 - Dated:- 22-9-2014 - MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN AND MR. H.K. THAKUR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Govind Jha, A.R. ORDER Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This miscellaneous (others) application is for seeking condonation of delay in filing extension application before the Bench. After hearing both sides, we dismiss the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo months from the date of the order:- 5.08. Now, so far as second question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether while disposing of the application for extension of stay granted earlier, the learned Appellate Tribunal is required to pass a speaking / reasoned order or not? As observed hereinabove, the learned Appellate Tribunal can extend the stay granted earlier beyond the period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, however, on being subjectively satisfied by the learned Appellate Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee / appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal extending stay, it appears that the impugned orders are non-speaking and non-reasoned orders and therefore, as such matters are required to be remanded to the learned Appellate Tribunal to consider the respective applications for extension of stay afresh and pass a detailed speaking order in each of the matters in light of the observations made hereinabove. 6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, question No.1 is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and it is held that in case and having satisfied that delay in not disposing of the appeal within 365 days (total) from the date of grant of initial stay is not attributable to the appellant / assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to review the situation and consider the application for extension of stay appropriately. Thus, on expiry of maximum period of 180 days the assessee / appellant is required to submit application for extension of stay each time and the Appellate Tribunal is required to consider the individual case and pass a speaking order, as stated hereinabove. By the aforesaid it may also not be understood that the Appellate Tribunal may go on extending the stay indefinitely and may not dispose of the appeals within stipulated time i.e. within 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay and/or at the earliest. All efforts shall be made by the learned Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeals at the earliest more particularly in a case where stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders afresh, as stated above. 4. In view of the above directions contained in the Hon ble High Court s order, the matter was listed for hearing on 22.09.2014 and the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant is not at fault as the case has never been listed for final disposal. 5. Learned departmental representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that extension sought for by the appellant should not be allowed now, even if the extensions were earlier allowed by the Bench as the statutory provisions do not permit it. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the case records that the stay was granted to the appellant on 09.10.2012. After granting of stay to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
