2012 (6) TMI 860

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y using delay tactics. 2. This matter involves duty incidence of Rs. 37,46,69,391/- with interest and equal amount of penalty. 3. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the impugned order confirming aforesaid duty demand, interest and penalty preferred this appeal along with stay application. Stay application was disposed of by the order of this Tribunal dated 22-9-2011 [2012 (279) E.L.T. 61 (Tribunal)]), whereby the erstwhile Bench of the Tribunal waived the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. 4. The department moved an application for early hearing on the ground that huge amount of duty was involved in the matter and unconditional stay has been granted to the appellant. The said application was disposed of on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... However, proviso to Section 35F provides for an exception to said general rule and confers power on the appellate authority to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit if the authority is of the opinion that pre-deposit would cause undue financial hardship to the appellant and while dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit the appellate authority is empowered to impose condition deemed fit for protecting the interest of Revenue. 7. The proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that where an order of stay is made in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed before the Tribunal the appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days and if such appeal is not disposed of within ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a decision on points which may have impact on other pending matters. 4. The Tribunal which was then known as Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) came to the conclusion that the amendment did not affect stay orders which were passed prior to the date of coming into force of the amendment and also held that the amendment did not in any way curtail the powers of the Tribunal to grant stay exceeding six months. 5. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench has by its decision reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 267 upheld the view impugned in this case. The decision of the Larger Bench has not been challenged by the Departmen....