Stay under Section 35C(2A) continues after omission of extension provisos; no fresh application required until appeal disposal.

Omission of the first, second and third provisos to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act removed the statutory mechanism for filing and deciding further applications for extension of stay, so no fresh extension application was required. However, the omission did not cause an existing stay order, already granted under Section 35C(2A), to lapse automatically for want of a saving clause. The stay continued to operate until disposal of the appeals, while the appeals themselves still had to be decided within the statutory period.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after omission of the first, second and third provisos to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 103 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, any further application for extension of stay was required and whether a stay order already in force continued to operate.

Analysis: The omission of the provisos was read as removing the mechanism for filing and deciding further applications for extension of stay. At the same time, the absence of a saving clause did not lead to the conclusion that an already granted stay stood automatically lapsed. The appellate appeals were still required to be disposed of within the statutory period, but the stay orders passed earlier under Section 35C(2A) were held to remain effective until disposal of the appeals. The view was supported by the principle that, in the absence of a saving provision, omission or repeal does not continue the omitted machinery for fresh applications, while existing protection already granted is not rendered ineffective merely by the omission.

Conclusion: No further application for extension of stay was required, and the existing stay order continued to remain in force until disposal of the appeals.

---