9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions have been filed by the petitioners with the limited grievance that appeals were preferred before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal along with the stay applications and on the stay applications, the matter was heard on 14-6-2012 [2012 (285) E.L.T. 388 (Tri.-Del.)] and the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties while disposing of the stay applications on 4-7-2012 observed as under :- We have considered arguments on both the sides. Prima facie the mis-declaration, if any, made by the applicants are not resulting in any short levy of duty or contravention of import policy. At best there may be contravention of declaration given to the DGFT at the time of obtaining the EPCG licenses. So far DGFT has not cancelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of three years from the date on which such appeal is filed and where an order of stay is made in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 129A, the Tribunal is under obligation to dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of such order and there is a further mandate that if the appeal could not be disposed of by the Tribunal within the time stipulated, on expiry of the period such stay granted by the Tribunal automatically stands vacated. 5. Counsel further submits that when their appeals could not have been heard by the Tribunal within the statutory period of 180 days and the period of stay was going to expire, applications filed for extension of the interim protection granted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 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. Counsel submits that if the Tribunal is not in a position to decide the appeal pending adjudication at least the petitioners-assessees may not be deprived of their legitimate right and apart from the fact that in the instant cases the stay applications came to be decided by the Tribunal after hearing the parties, at least the same could not be considered to be automatically vacated without the parties being heard on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntee pending application. We would further like to observe that what is being observed by this Court is limited to the extent of disposal of instant writ petitions and that may not be inhabitated/influenced the Tribunal while deciding the pending application of the present petitioners-assessees for extension of interim protection prayed for. It is further expected from the Tribunal to decide the application and the appeal itself expeditiously in accordance with law. 13. Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of notice for demand/recovery impugned herein till the application for extension of interim protection is decided by the Tribunal. It is also expecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
