TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the stay application was maintainable in the absence of any demand and with Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 inapplicable; (ii) whether out of turn hearing should be granted on account of recurring effect and a running contract.
Issue (i): Whether the stay application was maintainable in the absence of any demand and with Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 inapplicable.
Analysis: As no demand had been created in the case, the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F was held to have no application. On that basis, the stay request could not survive for adjudication.
Conclusion: The stay application was rejected as infructuous.
Issue (ii): Whether out of turn hearing should be granted on account of recurring effect and a running contract.
Analysis: The matter was stated to arise from a running contract and to have recurring effect, creating the possibility of multiplicity of proceedings. That consideration was accepted as sufficient reason for expediting the hearing.
Conclusion: Out of turn hearing was granted and the matter was directed to be heard on merits on the date fixed.
Final Conclusion: The interim request for stay failed, but the appeal was taken up for expedited hearing on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where no demand has been created, Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 does not apply, and a stay application may be rejected as infructuous; expeditious hearing may be ordered where the dispute has recurring effect and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
