TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of stay is made in any proceeding relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of Section 35B the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of such order. The second proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act provides that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order, shall on the expiry of that period stand vacated. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged in the processing grey fabrics. The officers of the revenue department visited the premises of the petitioner on 18-11-1998 and seized certain private records. It is alleged that some unaccounted grey fabrics and semi- processed f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 14-8-2008 extended the stay order, already granted, till the disposal of the appeal. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal has neither been challenged by the Revenue before higher Court nor it has been vacated. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal exists till date. Despite the aforesaid order of the Tribunal granting stay till the disposal of appeal, the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bar has issued the im pugned notice of demand dated 11-1-20] 0 for recovery of Rupees 652.16 lacs. 5. Heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the respondents that after expiry of 180 days, the stay order stood vacated and, therefore, the demand notice was justified is patently illegal. He submitted that 130 days expired in the year 2006 itself and the Tribunal has passed the order extending the stay till the disposal of the appeal on 14-8-2008, therefore, there was no occasion to issue the impugned notice of demand on 111-2010. lie submitted that the demand notice is arbitrary and full of main fide. He submitted that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bareli has no authority to challenge the power of the Tribunal and of this Hon'ble Court by stating in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit that the order of the Tribunal granting stay till ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the first proviso, the stay order, shall on the expiry of that period stand vacated." 10. The above provision came up for consideration before the two Members' Bench of the Tribunal. The Bench in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills Pri vate Limited v. ca, Ahmedabad (supra) has held that even though the period of the order of stay initially passed, would come to an end on expiry of 180 days in view of the amended provisions, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to extend the period of stay by passing fresh order is not affected. 11. In the case of IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra), the above view of the two Members' Bench has been affirmed. The Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that the Tribunal has a jurisdiction to g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied) 12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was competent to extend the stay order till the disposal of appeal. The order dated 14-8- 2008, passed by the Tribunal, extending the stay till the disposal of appeal, is valid till date- It has neither been challenged before any of the higher Court nor it has been vacated. Needless to say that the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the lower authority, including the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bareli-respondent No. 3. Once there was a stay order in existence, respondent No. 3 has no legal authority to circumvent the said order and initiate the recovery proceeding. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor has not followed the order of the Appellate Authority. The Apex Court observed as follows: "The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department-in itself an objectionable phrase-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws." 15. In the present case it is admitted case that the order of the Tribunal has no....