2015 (4) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s formulated the following questions of law:- "(i) Whether, the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in granting waiver of pre-deposit of assessed demand in favour of the respondents during pendency of the appeal or for unlimited period thereby granting the stay ignoring provisions to section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 including third proviso made through enactment of Finance bill 2013, wherein Hon'ble CESTAT bound to specify the time limit of stay subject to not exceeding 180 days in first time and 185 days in second time granting extension but exceed total time of 365 days. (ii) Whether, the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad vide order dated 08.10.2013, in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. M/s J.P. Transforme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. 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 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, ....