2014 (12) TMI 75 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal's Power to Extend Stay Beyond 180 Days Upheld, Guidelines Set for Future Applications

The Tribunal affirmed its inherent power to grant and extend stay beyond 180 days, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kumar Cotton Mills. It aligned ... Extension of stay order - power of tribunal - extension beyond the period of 180 days or 365 days in all - Held that:- in future the stay and waiver granted in the first instance will be followed for 180 days and second extension and thereafter extensions will be granted for a limited period in accordance with law as and when applications are filed after ensuring that delay in decision on the appeal is not caused by the appellant. - appellants should ensure that they file application for extension of stay within the period prescribed under the law without fail. - Once an application has been filed within the period of stay already granted, the Department should not enforce the recovery till the application for extension is decided. - if an appellant has not filed application for extension of stay even after the period of stay is over, if recovery action has not been initiated by the Revenue, the fact that application was filed beyond the period of earlier stay order, should not lead to enforcement of demand. Following decision of SURESH JAISWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [2014 (9) TMI 698 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Power of the Tribunal to grant extension of stay beyond 180 days.2. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.3. Legislative provisions and inherent powers of the Tribunal.4. Guidelines for filing and considering applications for extension of stay.Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the Tribunal to Grant Extension of Stay Beyond 180 Days:The Tribunal examined the inherent power to grant stay and its extension, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Kumar Cotton Mills which upheld the Tribunal's inherent power to extend stay beyond 180 days. The Tribunal noted that despite the legislative amendments, the inherent power to grant stay is not extinguished. The Tribunal reiterated that the power to grant and extend stay is an inherent power unless explicitly barred by statute.2. Applicability of the Decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad:The Tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in CC & CE v. J.P. Transformers which held that indefinite extension of stay is not permissible. The Tribunal noted that the Allahabad High Court's decision emphasized that the stay should not be indefinite and must be justified. The Tribunal aligned itself with the decision, stating that extensions should be granted for limited periods and not indefinitely, ensuring that the delay in appeal disposal is not attributable to the appellant.3. Legislative Provisions and Inherent Powers of the Tribunal:The Tribunal reviewed Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and its amendments, noting the legislative intent to expedite appeal disposals. The Tribunal referenced the Kumar Cotton Mills decision, affirming that the power to grant stay is an inherent power of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also compared similar provisions in the Karnataka VAT Act, highlighting that the absence of an explicit bar on extending stay in the Central Excise Act supports the Tribunal's power to grant extensions.4. Guidelines for Filing and Considering Applications for Extension of Stay:The Tribunal laid down specific guidelines for future applications for extension of stay:- Timely Filing and Notification: Appellants must file applications for extension within the prescribed period and notify the enforcement officers. The Department should not enforce recovery until the application is decided.- Consideration of Late Applications: If an application is filed after the stay period has expired, the Department should allow the Tribunal to consider the application before initiating recovery actions.- Uniform Application: The order applies to applications under the Customs Act, Finance Act, 1994, and Central Excise Act, unless differences are pointed out.The Tribunal emphasized that these guidelines aim to balance the interests of the Revenue and the appellants, ensuring that the stay extensions are granted judiciously and not indefinitely. The Tribunal made it clear that it would follow these guidelines and the principles laid down in the Misc. Order dated 3-2-2014 in future cases.