Tribunal rules on stay extension and early appeal listing amid duty payment coercion. Stay of recovery continuesS/Shri P.G. Chacko, Jeet Ram Kait, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.V. Raman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri C. Mani, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - This application seeks extension of stay and early listing of the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has given an account of history of the judicial proceedings. The appeal filed by the assessee had been allowed by this Tribunal in 1998 vide Final Order Nos. 1882-1885/1998, dated 17-9-98. The Rev... ... ... Issues:
1. Extension of stay and early listing of the appeal.
2. Coercion by the department to pay the duty.
3. Applicability of the Tribunal's decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara regarding the power to extend the stay of recovery.
4. Interpretation of the stay order and its revival.

Extension of Stay and Early Listing of the Appeal:
The appellant sought an extension of stay and early listing of the appeal, citing the history of judicial proceedings. The Tribunal had initially allowed the appeal in 1998, but the Supreme Court later set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh decision. The department was allegedly coercing the appellants to pay the duty. The appellants relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara to argue for the extension of the stay of recovery. The Tribunal noted that the application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery was still pending and scheduled for a hearing on a specific date.

Coercion by the Department to Pay the Duty:
The department had issued a demand notice to the appellants, stating that the stay of recovery had been vacated by the operation of a specific provision of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contended that the Tribunal had the power to extend the stay of recovery, citing the decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara. The Tribunal acknowledged the demand notice but clarified that the stay of recovery would continue until the disposal of the application for waiver of predeposit.

Applicability of Tribunal's Decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara:
The appellants relied on the Tribunal's decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara to argue for the extension of the stay of recovery. They urged that the stay of recovery should be granted and the appeal be listed for early hearing. The Tribunal considered this argument but clarified that the application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery needed to be addressed separately.

Interpretation of the Stay Order and Its Revival:
The Tribunal clarified that the stay order had not been automatically revived with the revival of the appeal. The application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery was still pending and scheduled for a hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that until the disposal of that application, there would be a stay of recovery for the sake of justice. Stay Order - Revival of - Extension of stay of recovery NEYCER INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY
Central Excise
2004 (8) TMI 424 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 312 (Tri. - Chennai)
CESTAT, CHENNAI - AT
Dated:- 17-8-2004
E/5460/93 I/W and E/1860-1862/98 - 500/2004
Central Excise
S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Jeet Ram Kait, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.V. Raman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri C. Mani, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - This application seeks extension of stay and early listing of the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has given an account of history of the judicial proceedings. The appeal filed by the assessee had been allowed by this Tribunal in 1998 vide Final Order Nos. 1882-1885/1998, dated 17-9-98. The Revenue filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against this order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside our Final Order and remanded the case to us for fresh decision. Thus the appeal is again before us. Meanwhile, the department is allegedly coercing the appellants to pay the duty. A copy of the Central Excise Range Superintendent's letter dated 16-7-2004 requesting the appellants to pay the arrears has been filed with this application. This letter says that the appellants have to pay up the duty as the stay of recovery stands vacated by operation of the second proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act. With reference to this, the appellants, in this application, rely on the Tribunal's Larger Bench's decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara, 2004 (169) E.L.T. 267 (T-LB) = 2004 (63) RLT 1 and submit that this Bench has powers to extend the stay of recovery. Ld. Counsel has urged that such stay of recovery be granted and the appeal be posted for early hearing. 2. We have heard the DR also, who has seen the Superintendent's demand notice dated 16-7-2004. 3. We have considered the appellant's plea. This plea appears to be based on a premise that our stay order has also been got revived with the revival of the appeal. This is not correct. However, the appellants' application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery is alive and the same has to be disposed of afresh. That application will be heard on 24-8-2004. Till disposal of that application, there will be stay of recovery for the ends of justice.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders