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 could exercise inherent power under Rule 41 to grant a stay and direct that the attached factory property not be disposed of during the pendency of the appeal.
Analysis: Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules empowers the Tribunal to make orders or give directions necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it possessed inherent power to grant protective directions in the nature of stay. The Tribunal also noted that the applicability of Section 142 of the Customs Act and the objection regarding Section 11 of the Central Excise Act required examination at the final hearing, and that the appellant's undertaking not to create further encumbrance made the requested protection reasonable.
Conclusion: The Tribunal held that it could grant stay and restrain disposal of the property during the pendency of the appeal, while directing the appellant not to create fresh encumbrance.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal vested with procedural powers to secure the ends of justice may grant interim protective directions, including a restraint on disposal of property, where such directions are necessary to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.