TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth sides and perused the records. 3. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding appropriation of an amount of Rs. 3,53,24,189/- by the adjudicating authority vide his OIO No. BLS/25/2013-14/rebate dated 15.01.2014. The adjudicating authority has adjusted/ appropriated this amounts against some confirmed demand which were raised against the respondent. The respondent preferred appeal before the first appellate authority and argued that the appeals are still pending before the Tribunal against the impugned orders of the Commissioner. The first appellate authority, after going through the records has held as under:- 8. I find that there is no dispute tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter 11.05.2002 the Tribunals power to continue protection so given is not circumscribed and the Tribunal on an application being made by the applicant, is competent to extend the date of coverage of the stay order. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the above case has held as under; 2. The issue in these appeals is the construction of sub-section( (2A) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The sub-section which was introduced on 11.05.2002 by the Finance Act, 2002, provided as under: (2A) The Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is possible to do so, here and decide every appeal within a period of three years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallenged by the department being of the view that repeated special leave petition raising the same issue was unnecessary. 6. The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay applications are not disposed within the time specified. The reasoning of the Tribunal expressed in the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (Supra) cannot ....