9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, the Commissioner cannot indirectly ensure such stay by refusing to process and decide the appeals of the petitioners. This is precisely what the Commissioner has done in the present case. Refusal to decide the appeals on the ground that the Department's appeals are pending before the High Court would tentamount to ensuring stay against implementation of the decision of the Tribunal, which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners in 'Call Book' on account of pendency of the Department's appeals before the High Court. 2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner succeeded before the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT for short) when the appeals were allowed by judgment dated 07.11.2012. Against such judgment of the Tribunal, the Department has preferred Tax Appeals Nos.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case. Refusal to decide the appeals on the ground that the Department's appeals are pending before the High Court would tentamount to ensuring stay against implementation of the decision of the Tribunal, which the High Court refused to grant. In order dated 26.11.2015 in SCA No.18110 of 2015, following observations were made:- The petitioner, having succeeded before the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment's stay application. When, thus, the Court refused to stay implementation of the judgment of the Tribunal, benefit thereof must flow in favour of the assessee who has succeeded. The action of the Commissioner in keeping the appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority refusing to grant refund would be an indirect attempt to deny the benefit to the petitioner flowing from such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
