https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107834 The Tribunal held that it does not have the authority to grant stay extensions beyond 180 days as per the newly inserted sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized the importance of adhering to legal constraints and suggested urgent administrative and structural reforms to address case backlogs instead of bypassing the statutory restriction. The judgment clarified the distinction between the power to waive pre-deposit under Section 35F and the power to stay recovery under Section 35C, highlighting the need to respect the legislative intent and statutory provisions. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:54:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107834 The Tribunal held that it does not have the authority to grant stay extensions beyond 180 days as per the newly inserted sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized the importance of adhering to legal constraints and suggested urgent administrative and structural reforms to address case backlogs instead of bypassing the statutory restriction. The judgment clarified the distinction between the power to waive pre-deposit under Section 35F and the power to stay recovery under Section 35C, highlighting the need to respect the legislative intent and statutory provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107834