Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal has power to extend a stay order beyond 180 days in the context of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The order held that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 enables dispensation of pre-deposit, and that the Tribunal's inherent power to grant stay of recovery would be rendered ineffective if continuation beyond 180 days were treated as impermissible. It was reasoned that the proviso to Section 35C(2A) provides for automatic vacation of stay on expiry of the period, but does not impose a positive bar on the Tribunal from granting further extension. The order also distinguished the contrary view and followed the earlier decisions recognising the Tribunal's power to extend stay to avoid injustice to the appellant.
Conclusion: The Tribunal has the power to extend stay beyond 180 days.
Final Conclusion: The order favoured the appellant on the legal question of maintainability of stay extension, but the matter was referred to the President for placement before a Larger Bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's inherent power to stay recovery is not cut down by Section 35C(2A) so as to prohibit extension of stay beyond 180 days, because the provision contemplates automatic vacation rather than an absolute bar on further judicial extension.