TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Ashish Kumar Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Mehta, Mr. Vinay Mathur, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, for the respondents. ORDER 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In D.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7486/2014- M/s Rathi TMT Saria Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and other connected writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for directions to quash the orders/letters of recovery and attachment, issued by the respondents, on the expiry of the interim orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the CESTAT'), with conditions of pre-deposit under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which provides that wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pendency of the appeal thereby extending the period of stay beyond 365 days ignoring the recent amendment to Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 6. The question of law raised in these matters seeks interpretation of Section 35C of the Act of 1944. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2005(180) E.L.T. 434(S.C.), while interpreting Section 35C of the Act of 1944, 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 rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extending the stay order to operate until decision of the appeal, is that the appeal could not be disposed of for no fault of the petitioner, and that in view of pendency of several older appeals, the stay order deserves to be extended till the hearing of appeal. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department that the question raised in the present case is covered by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. J.P. Transformers, 2014(307) E.L.T. 436(All.), and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Commr. Of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Tranding P. Ltd., 2014(305) E.L.T. 328 (Kar.). In both these cases, the Courts have held that the Appellate Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relied upon a judgment in Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2013(290) E.L.T. 362(Kar.), in which an observation was made that the Union of India has failed to set up large number of Tribunals such as CESTAT and if this is done, then there would be no cause for complaint over the non-consideration of the applications for stay, in appeals, by only one Tribunal, presently functioning at Bengalore. 14. It is submitted that only two Benches and one single member is looking after stay matters and hearing of the appeals, arising out of eight States, namely Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. They have also relied upon para 252 of the speech of Minister of Financ....