2001 (11) TMI 607 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies stay on Final Order over excise duty dispute despite High Court reference

PRAG VANASPATI PRODUCTS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

The Tribunal denied the applicants' request for a stay on the operation of the Final Order following a reference to the High Court on a question of law ... Stay Issues:Stay of operation of Final Order, Power of Tribunal to grant stay, Reference to High Court on question of law, Duty demand confirmation, Tribunal's power after reference application dismissal.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the applicants seeking a stay on the operation of the Final Order due to a reference made by the Hon'ble High Court on a question of law. The dispute arose regarding the entitlement of the manufacturer to take credit for excise duty on vegetable products. The applicants argued that the High Court had directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law, and hence, the operation of the final order should be stayed to prevent duty recovery. However, the Revenue authorities contended that after the Tribunal's decision and dismissal of the reference application, no stay should be granted.The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and examined the facts on record. It was established that the duty demand against the applicants was confirmed during a specific period, and subsequent appeals and orders affirmed the duty liability. The applicants then sought a reference to the High Court, which was initially dismissed by the Tribunal but later directed by the High Court. The Tribunal, after analyzing the situation, concluded that it had no power to stay its own order post the reference application dismissal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of revenue collection for government schemes and highlighted the applicants' obligation to pay duty.Regarding the power of the Tribunal to grant a stay, legal precedents were cited, emphasizing that the Tribunal can grant a stay under specific circumstances, especially when a question of law is referred to the High Court. However, in this case, since the Tribunal had already dismissed the reference application due to the absence of a substantial question of law, the Tribunal found no justification for granting a stay on the final order. The judgment highlighted that the operation of the final order should not be stayed merely based on the High Court's direction for reference, especially when no strong grounds exist for such action.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications of the applicants, emphasizing that the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant a stay on the operation of the final order. The judgment underscored the applicants' duty to pay the outstanding amount and the government's need for revenue, ultimately leading to the decision against granting a stay.