Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 Appellate Tribunal could extend interim protection beyond 365 days where the appeal was not disposed of within the prescribed period and the delay was not attributable to the assessee.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood after the amendments, was examined along with its legislative history. The provision required the Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of appeals within three years and, where stay had been granted, within 180 days, with a further limited extension up to 365 days. The Court treated these limits as directory rather than mandatory, emphasizing the words indicating that the Tribunal should act where it is possible to do so. It held that the omission of the provisos by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 removed the earlier statutory bar and that, even earlier, the Tribunal retained incidental power to continue interim protection in deserving cases where the delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Court followed the view that an assessee should not suffer loss of stay merely because the appeal could not be heard due to docket congestion or reasons beyond its control.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was competent to extend interim protection beyond 365 days in a case where the delay in disposal of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory time limit for disposal of appeals and stay applications that is framed in directory terms does not extinguish the Tribunal's incidental power to continue or extend interim protection in deserving cases where the assessee is not responsible for the delay.