2015 (7) TMI 753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ahant, Adv. ORDER CM No. 11834/2015 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CEAC No. 27/2015 3. The challenge in this appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (CCE), Delhi is to an order dated 5th January 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") whereby the Miscellaneous Applications f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby it directed extension of the interim order granted in respect of the respondent assessee. It is brought to the notice of this Court at the outset that in a similar situation, where an identically phrased amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961, denying the power and jurisdiction to extend the interim order beyond 365 days was involved, the Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew of the additional words "even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee" is not to be found in the third proviso to Section 35 C (2A) of the Act. She drew attention of the Court to a judgment dated 19th May 2015 of another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1334/2015 and batch (Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o grant extension of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases." 6. The decision in Pepsi Foods was delivered two weeks after the decision of the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in CCE v. Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. In terms of the judgment in Pepsi Foods the CESTAT would, even in terms of the third proviso to Section 35 C (2A) of the Act, not be denuded of the power to extend the stay beyond ....