Tribunal denies revenue's stay applications, citing strong case on merits and judicious exercise of power.

The Tribunal rejected both stay applications filed by the revenue, emphasizing that the power to grant stay was incidental to its appellate jurisdiction and should be exercised judiciously. The decision was based on the respondents having a strong case on merits, supported by settled legal principles from various High Courts and Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to grant stay to the revenue, concluding that it was not a suitable case to exercise inherent powers for granting stay, preventing appeals from being rendered ineffective.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad.
2. Stay applications filed by revenue for grant of stay.
3. Inclusion of interest in assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Prima facie case on merits for respondents.
5. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions of High Courts and Tribunal.
6. Power of Appellate Tribunal to grant stay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. Additionally, two stay applications were filed by the revenue seeking a stay of a specific sum. The issue revolved around the charging of interest by the respondents from customers for delayed payments and whether this interest should be included in the assessable value as per Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The respondent's advocate argued that various High Court and Tribunal decisions supported the respondent's position. Citing cases such as Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, the advocate contended that the issue had been settled post the Supreme Court's decision in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. The advocate emphasized that the respondents had a prima facie strong case on merits, urging the rejection of the revenue's stay applications.

3. The revenue's representative referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., which was later recalled. The representative highlighted the pending review of the MRF order in the Snow White Industrial Corporation case and suggested awaiting the final Supreme Court decision. The contention was to keep the matters pending until the Supreme Court provided a definitive ruling.

4. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances of the case, noting the settled issue based on decisions of the Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and previous Tribunal cases. Referring to judgments like D.C.M. Shriram Consolidated Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal found that the issue had been conclusively addressed post the Supreme Court's ruling in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. The Tribunal agreed that the respondents had a strong case on merits.

5. The Tribunal further emphasized the maintainability of an application under Section 35F for an aggrieved person, not the revenue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, the Tribunal clarified its jurisdiction in dealing with stay applications. It was held that the Tribunal's power to grant stay was incidental to its appellate jurisdiction, and in this case, the Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to grant stay to the revenue.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected both stay applications filed by the revenue, concluding that it was not a suitable case to exercise inherent powers for granting stay. The decision was based on the understanding that the Tribunal's power to grant stay was essential to its appellate jurisdiction and should be exercised judiciously to prevent appeals from being rendered ineffective.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant case law, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the grant of stay applications.

---