Appellate Tribunal CESTAT upholds waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F, denies stay extension requests.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, rejected miscellaneous applications seeking extension of stay orders based on the interpretation of Section 35F. The Tribunal affirmed its power to waive pre-deposit and stay recovery, emphasizing that this power remains unless amended. Despite the rejection, the waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F was upheld, and the Tribunal directed priority for the regular hearing of connected appeals. The Tribunal's decision maintained the waiver of pre-deposit while denying the extension of stay orders, in line with its ruling in a previous case involving M/s. Themis Pharmaceuticals and Others.

---

---

Issues: Extension of stay orders, interpretation of Section 35F, Tribunal's power to waive pre-deposit, impact of Finance Act, 2002 on Tribunal's powers.

In the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed the issue of extension of stay orders in three applications. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving M/s. Themis Pharmaceuticals and Others to establish key principles. Firstly, Section 35F mandates pre-deposit of duty and penalty during appeal, but the proviso grants the Tribunal the power to waive pre-deposit in suitable cases. The Tribunal emphasized that its power to waive pre-deposit remains unchanged unless there is an amendment to Section 35F. It also highlighted that the Tribunal's power to stay recovery and grant stay of an appealed order is inherent to its appellate function. However, the Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2002, introduced a restriction on the Tribunal's incidental powers beyond 180 days under Section 35C(2A), which the Tribunal cannot challenge as it is bound by the statute.

The Tribunal, based on its previous ruling in the Themis Pharmaceuticals case, rejected the miscellaneous applications seeking extension of stay orders. Despite this rejection, the Tribunal clarified that the waiver of pre-deposit granted under Section 35F would continue. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the Registry to prioritize the regular hearing of the connected appeals in these cases. Ultimately, the miscellaneous applications were disposed of in accordance with the Tribunal's decision, maintaining the waiver of pre-deposit while denying the extension of stay orders.

---