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>High Court Upholds Appeal Decision on Duty Waiver & Stay Extension, Emphasizes Timely Disposal</h1> <h3>Commissioner Central Excise Kanpur Versus Shri Rajiv Talreja</h3> Commissioner Central Excise Kanpur Versus Shri Rajiv Talreja - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the extension of stay beyond 365 days.2. Application of recent amendments to the Act concerning waiver of pre-deposit during the pendency of appeals.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 35C (2A) regarding the extension of stay beyond 365 daysThe High Court considered the appeal by the Revenue challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal granting waiver of duty demand, interest, and penalty, along with extending the stay period beyond 365 days. The questions of law raised by the Revenue focused on whether the Tribunal erred in extending the stay period beyond 365 days, disregarding the recent amendment to Section 35C of the Act. The Court referred to the provisions of Section 35C (2A) which mandate the disposal of appeals within specific timeframes, emphasizing that the stay order shall stand vacated if the appeal is not disposed of within the specified period.Issue 2: Application of recent amendments concerning waiver of pre-deposit during appealThe High Court analyzed the recent amendments to the Act, particularly the insertion of sub-section 2A in Section 35C by the Finance Act, 2013. The Court referred to a previous judgment where the purpose of the amendment was discussed, highlighting that granting waiver of pre-deposit indefinitely would defeat the legislative intent. The Court emphasized that while considering appeals, the Tribunal should ensure expeditious disposal within the stipulated timeframes to prevent indefinite extension of stay orders. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months, and clarified that the waiver of pre-deposit would remain valid for the specified period.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeal, aligning its decision with the interpretation of the law provided in previous judgments. The Court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of appeals to uphold the legislative intent behind the amendments to prevent indefinite extensions of stay orders. The Court's decision aimed to balance the interests of the parties while ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
