TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Denies Extension of Stay Order Beyond 365 Days</h1> <h3>SALASAR STEEL AND POWER LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking extension of the stay order beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite ... Waiver of pre-deposit - extension of operation of the stay order - Held that:- Delhi High Courts considered the position resulting from introduction of the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and ruled that as the relevant provision signals the clear legislative prescription that if the appeal is not disposed of under the first proviso of the Section or within the period or periods extended under the second proviso, which shall not in any case exceed 365 days, the stay order, after expiry of that period shall stand vacated - present appeal is of the year 2008. Several older appeals preferred under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 including of the year of 2005 are pending disposal. The delay in disposal of this appeal is not therefore attributable to the assessee. no extension of stay could be granted by the CESTAT in the light of the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even if the delay in disposal of an appeal, beyond the sunset period prescribed, is not attributable to an appellant - Extension of stay denied. Issues: Stay extension application beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Paragraph 1: The stay application was disposed of on 30.1.2012 with conditional waiver of pre-deposit granted, subject to compliance. Balance liability was waived, and recovery stayed till appeal disposal.Paragraph 2: An application was filed seeking extension of the stay order beyond 365 days from the date of granting stay, citing Supreme Court's principles in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills - 2005 (180) ELT 434.Paragraph 3: Karnataka and Delhi High Courts interpreted the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stating that if the appeal is not disposed of within the specified period, the stay order shall stand vacated.Paragraph 4: The current appeal dates back to 2008, with several older appeals pending disposal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The delay in disposal of this appeal is not attributed to the assessee.Paragraph 5: Referring to rulings of Karnataka and Delhi High Courts in various cases, the Tribunal held that no extension of stay could be granted under Section 35C(2A) even if the delay in appeal disposal is not the appellant's fault.Paragraph 6: The application seeking extension of the stay order was dismissed based on the reasons discussed in the previous paragraphs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
