2006 (3) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;It is seen that the effect of non-disposal of appeals within 180 days from the date of Stay Order had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Poly Fill Sacks v. Union of India [2005 (183) E.L.T. 344] and the High Court has ruled as under: 8.   When legislature has provided in the main provision, i.e. sub-section (2A) of Section 35C of the Act, that CESTAT may hear and decide the appeal within a period of three years, where it is possible to do so, legislature is well aware of the administrative exigencies and difficulties of the said body. There could be a host of reasons ranging from non-availability of a bench due to non-appointment of adequate number of technical and/or judicial membe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er interpretation of the sub-section with both the provisos would frustrate the object of Tribunal dispensing justice in deserving cases where the assessee is not at fault in any manner; the assessee having filed appeal and stay application within period of limitation, prima facie proved his case at hearing and obtained stay with or without conditions, and co-operating with Tribunal for hearing and disposal of appeal; but, the Tribunal is not in a position to proceed for various reasons. 10. The contention on behalf of Revenue that the assessee must approach the Tribunal and seek extension of stay already granted is misconceived - at least in relation to orders of the Tribunal made before 11-5-2002. Firstly, it proceeds on a fallacious pre....