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 Orders Swift Appeal Disposal & Stay Protection, Avoiding Recovery Actions</h1> <h3>Savira Industries Versus Commissioner</h3> The High Court directed the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the petitioner's appeal within six months. Emphasizing the importance of ... Vacation of stay order - Non disposal of appeal with 180 days - Held that:- Considering the limited scope of the prayer, sought for, by the petitioner, in this writ petition, viz., to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, viz., A. No. E. 294 of 2009, this Court directs the first respondent/appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the order of stay, granted by the first respondent earlier, wherein, the interest of the petitioner has been safeguarded, in my considered opinion, the same shall continue till the disposal of the Appeal and the third respondent is also refrained from initiating any recovery proceedings in pursuance to the order passed by the second respondent. - Petition disposed of. Issues:1. Delay in disposal of statutory appeal2. Automatic vacation of stay order3. Initiation of recovery proceedings4. Prayer for direction to dispose of appeal expeditiouslyAnalysis:Issue 1: Delay in disposal of statutory appealThe petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's statutory appeal within a stipulated time. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, and a stay application was also filed by the petitioner. However, as the appeal was not disposed of within 180 days, the stay order automatically lapsed, leading to the initiation of recovery proceedings by the third respondent. The petitioner contended that the delay in disposing of the appeal resulted in adverse consequences for them, prompting the filing of the Writ Petition.Issue 2: Automatic vacation of stay orderThe automatic vacation of the stay order was triggered by the non-disposal of the appeal within the statutory period of 180 days, as per proviso 2 to sub-Section (2A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The expiration of the stay order due to the prolonged pendency of the appeal empowered the third respondent to commence recovery proceedings in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court acknowledged the legal implications of the automatic vacation of the stay order and considered the impact it had on the petitioner's position in the case.Issue 3: Initiation of recovery proceedingsFollowing the automatic vacation of the stay order, the third respondent initiated criminal proceedings to recover the demanded amount from the petitioner. This action was taken in response to the lapse of the stay order and the statutory requirement for disposal of the appeal within the specified timeframe. The petitioner, aggrieved by the initiation of recovery proceedings, sought relief through the Writ Petition to address the consequences of the delay in disposing of the appeal and the subsequent recovery actions undertaken by the third respondent.Issue 4: Prayer for direction to dispose of appeal expeditiouslyThe court, considering the limited scope of the prayer in the Writ Petition, directed the first respondent/appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. A timeline of six months was set for the disposal of the appeal, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution of the pending matter. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the stay order granted earlier to safeguard the petitioner's interests until the appeal was conclusively resolved, thereby preventing the third respondent from initiating any further recovery proceedings based on the previous order.In conclusion, the High Court, through a detailed analysis of the issues raised, provided a comprehensive judgment that addressed the concerns of delay in appeal disposal, automatic vacation of stay orders, initiation of recovery proceedings, and the necessity for expeditious resolution of pending appeals to protect the rights and interests of the parties involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
