Tribunal's Inherent Power to Grant Stay Despite Abolition of Specific Provision

The Tribunal reaffirmed its inherent power to grant stay under the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the abolition of Section 35C(2A). It held that the removal of the specific provision did not diminish its authority to extend stay, citing precedents. The Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative's argument and extended the stay granted earlier, emphasizing the necessity of the power to grant stay for effective adjudication of appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Extension of stay granted by the Tribunal under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking an extension of the stay granted by the Tribunal earlier, as the Revenue was insisting on recovery despite the Stay Order. The Departmental Representative argued that after the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal no longer had the power to grant an extension of stay. However, the Tribunal noted that the power to grant stay is inherent, as recognized in previous judgments. The Tribunal referenced the case of Shri Ram Narayan Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Vs. CCE, Surat-I and the judgment in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murthi to establish the inherent power of the Tribunal to grant stay.

The Tribunal highlighted that even though Section 35C(2A) did not expressly grant the power to grant stay, its abolition did not diminish the Tribunal's authority in this regard. The Tribunal cited the case of Halidram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi, where it was held that the Tribunal could extend stay beyond the specified period if the delay was not due to the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative's contention and extended the stay granted earlier to operate during the pending appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to grant stay was inherent and not dependent on the existence of a specific statutory provision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal reaffirmed its inherent power to grant stay, even after the abolition of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment clarified that the Tribunal's authority to extend stay was not affected by the removal of the specific provision, emphasizing that the power to grant stay was essential for effective adjudication of appeals.

---