https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53592 Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, read with Rule 40, was treated as empowering the Tribunal to pass orders necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, including restitution of amounts wrongly appropriated by the department during pending stay extension proceedings. The Tribunal found that the department had taken advantage of the interval between filing and disposal of the applications and had recovered disputed sums despite subsisting proceedings before it. That conduct was treated as high-handed and as rendering the proceedings infructuous, and the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's objection that it lacked authority to undo the recovery. The appropriated amounts were directed to be refunded. en-us Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:39:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53592 Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, read with Rule 40, was treated as empowering the Tribunal to pass orders necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, including restitution of amounts wrongly appropriated by the department during pending stay extension proceedings. The Tribunal found that the department had taken advantage of the interval between filing and disposal of the applications and had recovered disputed sums despite subsisting proceedings before it. That conduct was treated as high-handed and as rendering the proceedings infructuous, and the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's objection that it lacked authority to undo the recovery. The appropriated amounts were directed to be refunded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53592