https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263139 The Appellate Tribunal's power to extend a stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act was treated as incidental to its appellate jurisdiction, and the three provisos requiring vacation of stay after 180 days and 365 days were read as directory rather than mandatory. Their omission by Section 103 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 removed the earlier restriction on stay extension. The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F was held to operate independently of the stay-extension mechanism, and the Tribunal could continue the stay where delay was not attributable to the assessee. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263139 The Appellate Tribunal's power to extend a stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act was treated as incidental to its appellate jurisdiction, and the three provisos requiring vacation of stay after 180 days and 365 days were read as directory rather than mandatory. Their omission by Section 103 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 removed the earlier restriction on stay extension. The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F was held to operate independently of the stay-extension mechanism, and the Tribunal could continue the stay where delay was not attributable to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263139