9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.ST/1737-1738 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012 has been ordered to be continued until further orders - Held that:- A request was made by learned counsel appearing for the assessees that the Court may issue direction to establish more number of Benches and for establishment of Circuit Benches to visit the States to decide the matters. They have relied upon a judgment in Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, [2013 (4) TMI 78 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], in which an observation was made that the Union of India has failed to set up large number of Tribunals such as CESTAT and if this is done, then there would be no cause for complaint over the non-consideration of the applications for stay, in appeals, by only one Tribunal, presently functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssees will not seek any unavoidable adjournment. - Appeal disposed of. - D.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.7486/2014 , D.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3419/2014, D.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3423/2014, D.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3543/2014, D.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3617/2014, D.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT P - - - Dated:- 1-12-2014 - The Acting Chief Justice Mr. Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. K. Ranka,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Jain with Ms. Mahi Yadav, Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Jain Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Mehta, Mr. Vinay Mathur, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, for the respondents. ORDER 1. We have heard learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 09.10.2012 has been ordered to be continued until further orders? 4. By the impugned order, the CESTAT has, on an application for extending the stay order which had expired in view of the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ' the Act of 1944'), extended the operation of the stay granted to the respondents, to operate during pendency of the appeals. 5. In all these matters, the question of law raised, is as follows:- Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in granting waiver of pre-deposit of assessed demand in favour of the respondent during pendency of the appeal thereby extending the period of stay beyond 365 days ignoring the recent amendment to Section 35C of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application made in this behalf by a party and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to such party, extend the period of stay to such further period, as it thinks fit, not exceeding one hundred and eighty-five days, and in case the appeal is not so disposed of within the total period of three hundred and six-five days from the date of order referred to in the first proviso, the stay order shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand vacated. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department that the only reason given by the CESTAT for extending the stay order to operate until decision of the appeal, is that the appeal could not be disposed of for no fault of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deciding the appeal will affect the interest of the Revenue. He states that there are about 5000 matters pending in CESTAT at New Delhi with only two Benches hearing the matters relating to the matters of Notification, Classification and Valuation, and one Bench of a single member for deciding the matters of MODVAT/CENVAT, Service Tax, and Excise Appeal, valued less than ₹ 50 lacs. 13. A request was made by learned counsel appearing for the assessees that the Court may issue direction to establish more number of Benches and for establishment of Circuit Benches to visit the States to decide the matters. They have relied upon a judgment in Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2013(290) E.L.T. 362(Kar.), in which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
