AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmit that the initial stay order which was passed by this Bench and subsequent extension granted to the appellants herein expires on 20th August, 2014. It is his submission that the proviso of Section 35C(2A) of the Central excise Act 1944 were amended by the Finance Act of 2014 and vide Section 103 of the Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 the 1st, 2nd and 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise act 1944,were omitted. It is his submission that since the provisos were omitted which require extension of stay on an application made by the party; the position today is there is no requirement for extension of initial stay granted and subsequent extensions. It is his submission that no saving clause has been enacted in the section henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue, we need to reproduce the provisions of Section 35C(2A) prior to omissions of the provisos thereof: [(2A) The Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of three years from the date on which such appeal is filed: Provided that where an order of stay is made in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 35B, the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order: Provided further 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.] Provided also that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there is no provision for making any further applications for extension of stay nor Tribunal has powers for hearing and disposing the applications for extension of stay from 7.8.2014. In the absence of any provisions for hearing and disposing applications for extension of stay, we find that the applications made by the appellants herein have to be disposed of as such. 7. At the same time it would also mean that after initial granting of stay by the Tribunal order does not get lapsed. Omission of 1st, 2nd and 3rd proviso would mean that the appeal filed by an assessee needs to be disposed of within a period of 3 years is only the requirement and stay orders which has been passed by the Tribunal under the powers mandated under the po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the General Clauses Act or there is a pari materia provision in the statute under which the rule has been framed, in that case also, the pending proceedings will not be affected by omission of the rule. In the absence of any such provision in the statute or in the rule, the pending proceedings would lapse on the rule under which the notice was issued or proceedings were initiated being deleted/omitted. The court held that the position is well known that at common law, the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile the rule was in force would be protected. However, no new proceeding could be initiated after the rule had ceased to exist. 17.4 Thus, any obligation or liability etc. acquired, accrued or incurred under Section 3A of the Act would not be saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether after the omission of Section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001 proceedings initiated under Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules would survive, or in other words what would be the position of obligations or liabilities incurred under Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules after the omission of Section 3A. As noticed earlier, Rule 96ZQ of the Rules only lays down the procedur....