https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108068 Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was read as providing automatic vacation of stay on expiry of the prescribed period, but not as imposing an absolute bar on further extension. The Tribunal reasoned that its inherent power to protect recovery proceedings would be ineffective if continuation beyond 180 days were prohibited, and it followed earlier decisions recognising power to extend stay to avoid injustice to the appellant. The competing interpretation was noted, and the issue was referred to the President for placement before a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:58:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108068 Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was read as providing automatic vacation of stay on expiry of the prescribed period, but not as imposing an absolute bar on further extension. The Tribunal reasoned that its inherent power to protect recovery proceedings would be ineffective if continuation beyond 180 days were prohibited, and it followed earlier decisions recognising power to extend stay to avoid injustice to the appellant. The competing interpretation was noted, and the issue was referred to the President for placement before a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108068