By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JUNE 25, 2015: A Miscellaneous Application was filed by the appellant seeking extension of the stay granted earlier. It is submitted that in spite of the earlier Stay Order, Revenue is insisting for recovery of the adjudged dues.

The AR took a stand that with effect from 06.08.2014 Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been abolished and, therefore, the Tribunal does not have any power to grant extension of stay.

The Bench inter alia observed -

++ The power to grant stay has not been expressly provided in the statute but is an inherent power Shri Ram Narayan Dyg. & Ptg. Mills 2009-TIOL-2413-CESTAT-AHM, Baldev Raj Ram Murthi 2005-TIOL-931-CESTAT-DEL.

++ It is evident that the power to grant stay, although not expressly provided (either before 06.08.2014 or with effect therefrom) in the Statute, it was and continues to be an inherent power of the Tribunal.

++ As regards the contention of the AR that with the abolition of Section 35C(2A) ibid the power of CESTAT to extend stay stands eclipsed, perusal of the sub-section clearly reveals that the said sub-section did not grant any power to grant stay; it only sought to put fetters on the power of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond a certain period.

++ Consequently, its abolition can only have an effect that fetters which the said sub-section sought to place on the Tribunal with regard to the duration beyond which CESTAT could not grant stay no longer exist. In other words, with the abolition of Section 35C(2A) ibid with effect from 06.08.2014, the power of the Tribunal with regard to grant of stay in no way got attenuated.

++ Even during the existence of sub-section 35C(2A) of the Act (i.e. prior to 06.08.2014), the Tribunal in the case of Halidram India Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1965-CESTAT-DEL-LB held that the Tribunal had power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days in cases where appellant was ready and willing to pursue the appeal, but the Tribunal owing to the older pendency was unable to take up the appeal.

Rejecting the contention of the AR and having regard to the fact that the delay in taking up the appeal is not attributable to the appellants, the Bench extended the stay granted earlier.

(See 2015-TIOL-1239-CESTAT-DEL)