2014 (1) TMI 576 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal extends stay order to cover entire demand despite Revenue's objection, citing Bombay High Court judgment.

The Tribunal clarified that the stay order covered the entire demand confirmed by the Commissioner, rejecting the Revenue's interpretation based on a ... Modification of stay order – Revenue was of the view that the stay is in respect of limited amount and not an unconditional stay – Held that:- The understanding of the Superintendent as reflected in the letter is not appropriate and the stay order is for the entire amount involved in the order - The Tribunal has passed a detailed order and has already considered the effect of Larger Bench decision and inasmuch as, there is a subsequent judgement of the Hon’ble High Court – there was no justifiable reasons to recall the stay order and to vacate the stay – Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Clarification of stay order regarding the amount covered.2. Withdrawal of stay order based on a previous decision by the Larger Bench.3. Extension of stay order.Analysis:Issue 1: Clarification of stay orderThe Tribunal addressed the issue of clarification of the stay order in response to the Revenue's contention that the stay was granted only for a specific amount mentioned in one of the show cause notices. The Tribunal clarified that the stay order covered the entire demand confirmed by the Commissioner, even though the amount involved in one notice was explicitly stated. The Tribunal emphasized that the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest, and penalty was waived for the entire amount involved in the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's interpretation based on a letter from the Superintendent. The Tribunal granted the clarification sought by the applicant, confirming that the stay order applied to the entire amount in question.Issue 2: Withdrawal of stay order based on Larger Bench decisionThe Revenue filed a misc. application seeking the withdrawal of the stay order, citing a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the same applicant's case, which had been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue argued that this subsequent rejection should be a relevant factor in directing the applicant to deposit the amount and recalling the stay order. However, the Tribunal, after considering the Larger Bench decision and relevant precedent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, found no justifiable reason to recall the stay order. The Tribunal noted a subsequent judgment by the Bombay High Court, which supported the Tribunal's decision to grant the stay. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal to withdraw the stay order.Issue 3: Extension of stay orderThe third misc. application sought an extension of the stay order, which the Tribunal granted. The Tribunal allowed the application for an extension of the stay order, thereby disposing of all three miscellaneous applications in favor of the applicant. The Tribunal's decision to grant the extension of the stay order indicated a continuation of the relief provided to the applicant in the proceedings.In conclusion, the Tribunal provided clarity on the scope of the stay order, upheld the stay despite a previous decision by the Larger Bench, and granted an extension of the stay order, ensuring a fair and reasoned approach to the legal issues raised in the case.