9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing of appeal. Thousands of appeals are pending in the CESTAT, arising from six States, for which earlier there was only one Bench and only recently a second Bench has been constituted. The final hearing of the appeals ordinarily takes about three years in CESTAT, and that in the present case also, hearing of appeal, filed in the year 2012, will take some more time. In the Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 01.10.2014, Section 35C(2A) has been omitted and that appeals can be filed now for hearing with a deposit of 10% of the demand. - CESTAT, New Delhi, to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of six months from today. The waiver of pre-deposit will be valid upto the period of six months - Follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endency of the appeal thereby extending the period of stay beyond 365 days ignoring the recent amendment to Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 6. The question of law raised in the appeal seeks interpretation of Section 35C of the Act of 1944. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Cus. C.Ex., Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434(S.C.), had held as follows:- 6. The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exige ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to operate until decision of the appeal, is that the appeal could not be disposed of for no fault of the petitioner, and that in view of pendency of several older appeals, the stay order deserves to be extended till the hearing of appeal. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Department that the question raised in the present case is covered by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Cus. C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. J.P. Transformers, 2014(307) E.L.T. 436(All.), and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Commr. Of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Tranding P. Ltd., 2014(305) E.L.T. 328 (Kar.). In both these cases, the Courts have held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a positive error in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
