2012 (8) TMI 1049 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Mumbai Extends Stay of Recovery citing Precedents

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai granted the application for extension of stay of recovery, citing precedents such as IPCL vs. CCE Vadodara and CCE ... Extension of stay of recovery - stay of recovery - appellant not responsible for pendency of appeal - precedential effect of tribunal and higher court decisionsExtension of stay of recovery - appellant not responsible for pendency of appeal - precedential effect of tribunal and higher court decisions - Extension of stay of recovery granted in favour of the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal allowed the application for extension of the stay of recovery. The order applies established precedent to hold that where the appellant is not responsible for the pendency of the appeal, extension of stay of recovery is permissible. The Tribunal expressly relied upon its Larger Bench decision in IPCL v. CCE (Tri.-LB) and the Supreme Court affirmation in CCE v. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., as well as supportive decisions of High Courts, and accepted the applicant's reasons together with the learned DR's submissions. On that basis the Tribunal found grounds to extend the stay of recovery as prayed for.Application allowed and extension of stay of recovery granted.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal granted extension of the stay of recovery, applying settled precedents and noting that the appellant was not responsible for the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai allowed the application for extension of stay of recovery based on previous decisions, including IPCL vs. CCE Vadodara and CCE vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., as well as judgments from the Hon'ble High Courts. The appellant was not held responsible for the pendency of the appeal.