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>Stay Orders Under Section 35C Continue Until Final Disposal: Tribunal Decision Simplifies Extension Process</h1> <h3>Ambassy Contractors Pvt Ltd and Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Bangalore and Anothers</h3> Ambassy Contractors Pvt Ltd and Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Bangalore and Anothers - TMI Issues:Extension of stay granted earlier; Omissions of provisos to section 35C(2A) of the CEA, 1944; Disposal of applications for extension of stay; Continuation of stay orders beyond a specific date; Requirement for filing further applications for extension of stay.Analysis:The judgment deals with miscellaneous applications seeking an extension of stay granted earlier, as the period of 180/185 days from the date of granting stay had expired. The Tribunal usually extends the stay after verifying the reasons for any delay, considering the heavy pendency with the Bangalore Bench. However, a significant observation from a Coordinate Bench at Ahmedabad in a different case highlighted the omission of provisos to section 35C(2A) of the CEA, 1944. It was clarified that there is no provision for making further applications for extension of stay, and the Tribunal does not have the power to hear and dispose of such applications after a specific date (7.8.2014). As per this observation, the applications for extension of stay should be disposed of as they are, without requiring any further applications for extension.The judgment further explains that the omission of certain provisos does not lead to the lapse of the stay order after the initial granting by the Tribunal. It emphasizes that the appeals filed by an assessee must be disposed of within three years as a requirement, and the stay orders passed by the Tribunal under the powers granted by section 35C of the CEA, 1944 will remain in force. Therefore, any stay order in force beyond 07.08.2014 will continue until the disposal of the appeals, eliminating the need for filing additional applications for extension of stay, whether fully or partially. The Tribunal, in agreement with the views and observations of the Coordinate Bench at Ahmedabad, decided to follow the same decision in the cases at hand. Upon verification, it was confirmed that the stay orders passed by the Tribunal were indeed in force beyond the specified date, ensuring their continuation until the final disposal of the appeals.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the procedure regarding the extension of stay orders granted by the Tribunal, based on the observations regarding the omissions of provisos to section 35C(2A) of the CEA, 1944. It establishes that there is no requirement for filing further applications for extension of stay once the initial stay order is in force beyond a specific date, as highlighted in the case of Venkateshwara Filaments Pvt. Ltd. The decision provides clarity on the continuity of stay orders and streamlines the process for the disposal of appeals without the need for additional applications for extension of stay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
