TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd, M/s Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd and of Shri R Rajendra Kumar under section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 35 C (2 A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and with rule 41 of Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, arise in consequence of certain letters received by the applicants from jurisdictional central excise authorities requiring them to pay the confirmed demands, along with interest thereon, as well as penalties imposed in orders that are currently impugned in appeals before the Tribunal in the absence of indefinite stay of recovery ordered by the Tribunal or to the extent that stay of initial period, since expired, has not been extended beyond the initial limited period. 2. We have hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applications. 4. It appears to us that, omitting to peruse the observation in the concurring judgement to the effect that, '17.... A judgement has to be read as a whole...', the attention of the jurisdictional officers was inexorably drawn to the direction to '35.... In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we considered appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of 6 months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended.' for initiating steps to implement the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Had the officials concerned applied their mind to the judgement as a whole, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lucid articulation that '26. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly conflicting observations may have been made while holding that the order framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable to be interfered with under Section 397(2) or even under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra) still holds the field. Order framing charge may not be held to be purely a interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to interfere with an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be exercised only in an exceptional si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hand and security of the society on the other. Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction. The acknowledged experience is that where challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the matter remains pending for long time which defeats the interest of justice.' does not appear to have made an impression in the minds of the officers. 7. The ambit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is restricted to one aspect of appeals and, that too, pertaining to trial courts. This Tribunal is not a trial court; it is an authority established to dispose off appeals at the first or second level, as the case may be. The stay ordered by Tribunal is on the recovery of amounts not cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A trial is quite distinct from an appeal, as a trial is an original proceeding, whereas an appeal is on appellate proceeding arising from the judgement and decree passed in original proceeding such as a suit. xxxxxxx It is necessary to observe that when once a superior Appellate Court has granted stay of the operation of the judgment and decree impugned before it in an appeal, the trial court cannot insist that despite such stay of the operation of the judgment and decree, it would execute the same. In such Cases, the trial Court or any other Court subordinate to the High Court cannot insist that there has to be a further order made by the High Court continuing the stay of such order....