Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 715 - MADRAS HIGH COURTExtension of stay order granted - Held that:- amendment, which came into effect from 10.5.13, by virtue of Section 98 of Finance Act, 2013 is only an extension of proviso 1 and 2 of sub-section (2A) of Section 35C. All that the 3rd proviso states is that where such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made in this behalf by a party and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to such party, extend the period of stay to such further period, as it thinks fit, not exceeding one hundred and eighty-five days, and it further states that if the appeal is not disposed of within the total period of three hundred and sixty-five days from the date of order referred to in the first proviso, the stay order referred to in the 1st proviso, viz., the order of stay shall, on the expiry of the said period, be vacated. Tribunal has considered the application filed by the respondent/assessee and has given a reason for grant of extension of interim order by holding that the Tribunal is granting the extension of interim order only on the ground that the Tribunal is unable to dispose of the appeal in time due to huge pendency of appeals before the Tribunal. When the appellate authority itself clearly concedes the fact that the delay is not on account of the respondent/assessee, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Cotton Mills case (supra) and we find no reason to differ with the said stand taken by the Tribunal in granting extension of the interim order by relying on the said judgment. - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.
|