9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - with interest and equal amount of penalty. 3. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the impugned order confirming aforesaid duty demand, interest and penalty preferred this appeal along with stay application. Stay application was disposed of by the order of this Tribunal dated 22-9-2011 [2012 (279) E.L.T. 61 (Tribunal)]), whereby the erstwhile Bench of the Tribunal waived the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. 4. The department moved an application for early hearing on the ground that huge amount of duty was involved in the matter and unconditional stay has been granted to the appellant. The said application was disposed of on 20-1-2012 in presence of Sh. J.M. Sharma, Consultant for the appellant and the matter was fixed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit if the authority is of the opinion that pre-deposit would cause undue financial hardship to the appellant and while dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit the appellate authority is empowered to impose condition deemed fit for protecting the interest of Revenue. 7. The proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that where an order of stay is made in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed before the Tribunal the appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days and if such appeal is not disposed of within the aforesaid period the stay order on expiry of the period shall stand vacated. The issue regarding construction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) came to the conclusion that the amendment did not affect stay orders which were passed prior to the date of coming into force of the amendment and also held that the amendment did not in any way curtail the powers of the Tribunal to grant stay exceeding six months. 5. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench has by its decision reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 267 upheld the view impugned in this case. The decision of the Larger Bench has not been challenged by the Department being of the view that repeated special leave petition raising the same issue was unnecessary. 6. The sub-section which was introduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we do not find a good cause for extending a stay order earlier granted by the Tribunal which has outlived its life of 180 days. 10. In view of the above order dated 22-9-2011 [2012 (279) E.L.T. 61 (Tribunal)] dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit is recalled and stay vacated. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, instead of calling upon the appellant to make full deposit, we direct the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty demand within four weeks. In the event of the appellant complying with the order the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount shall stand dispensed with and recovery stayed. 11. Appeal be listed on 18-9-2012 subject to compliance of the order of pre-deposit by the appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
