2014 (10) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icants and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434 (Paragraph 6 (SC), the interim stay, as granted, will continue until further orders. The miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly." The Revenue in the present appeal has formulated the following questions of law:- "(i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in granting waiver of pre-deposit of assessed demand in favour of the respondents during pendency of the appeal thereby extending the period of stay beyond 365 days ignoring the recent amendment to section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made through the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Vs. M/s J.P. Transformers3, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 8 October 2013, the Division Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.4 While considering the provisions of the second proviso to Section 35C (2A) of the Act, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "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....