9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT OF INDIA] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - D.B. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.40/2014, D.B. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.28/2014, D.B. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.44/2014, D.B. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.41/2014, D.B. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.42/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2015 - Mr. Sunil Ambwani And Prakash Gupta JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma Judgment 1.The curation of formal defects, pointed out by the Registry, is dispensed with. 2.The explanation given by learned counsel appearing for the Department, for condonation of delay, is found good and sufficient. The delay is accordingly condoned. 3.All these Central Excise Appeals have filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Paragraph 6 (SC)]? Central Excise Appeal No.41/2014: i. Whether the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in continuing the stay order dated 15.12.2011, till further orders, especially when the rules framed under the Act of 1944 were overlooked? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in overlooking the insertion of third proviso in Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide the Finance Act, 2013 and thereafter by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd. reported in 2005 (180) ELT 434 [Paragraph 6 (SC)]? Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers dated 17.04.2014 (Appeals No.40/2014 42/2014), 15.04.2014 (Appeal No.28/2014), 10.07.2014 (Appeal No.41/2014) and 29.04.2014 (Appeal No.44/2014), passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'CESTAT), by which the interim stay orders, as granted, were directed to continue, until further orders, on the ground that the delay in hearing of the appeals beyond 180 days, was for no fault on the part of the appellants, and thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd, 2005 (180) ELT 434 [paragraph 6 (SC)], the interim orders were allowed to continue, till further orders. 5.In a batch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay applications are not disposed within the time specified. The reasoning of the Tribunal expressed in the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara(supra) 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. 7.A third Proviso was added in Section 35C(2A) by the Finance Act, 2013 as follows:- Provided als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed a positive error in consciously extending the interim order of stay granted in the pending appeal beyond the period of 365 days, which is the outer limit stipulated in the statutory provisions. 10.The Allahabad High Court, in view of the fact that there was large pendency of appeals in CESTAT, had disposed of the appeal with direction to the CESTAT to decide the appeal expeditiously and if possible, within a period of six months from the date of last extension, allowed waiver of pre-deposit to continue upto the period of six months. 11.We are also informed that 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance in Lok Sabha, dated July 10, 2014, in which it was stated that to expedite the process of disposal of appeals, amendments have been proposed in the Customs and Central Excise Acts with a view to freeing appellate authorities from hearing stay applications and to take up regular appeals for final disposal. Consequently, the Act was amended with effect from 01.10.2014, omitting Section 35C(2A), with a deposit of 7.5% of the demand for first appeal, and 10% for second appeal. 15.We do not propose to issue any directions in this regard as the matter has to be considered by the Central Government, taking into consideration the pendency of appeals. For the purpose of present matters, we may only observe that the CESTAT will give prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
