TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of insertion of sub-section 2A in Section 35C by Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) w.e.f. 11.5.2002 and third Proviso by Finance Act, 2013 will stand defeated, if the waiver of pre-deposit is granted indefinitely – the appeal is disposed of with directions to the CESTAT to decide the appeal expeditiously and if possible within a period of six months from the date of the extension – The waiver of pre-deposit will continue to be valid upto the period of six months from its last extension dated 3.6.2013. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 277 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : B. K. Singh Raguvanshi OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay applications are not disposed within the time specified. The reasoning of the Tribunal expressed in the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra) cannot be faulted. However we should not be understood as holding that any latitude is given to the Tribunal to extend the period of stay except on good cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y which it had waived the pre-deposit of the assessed demand indefinitely. Such an order is likely to be misused by the assessee. Though we are conscious of the pendency of the appeals and workload assigned to the Principal Bench as well as various Benches of CESTAT, we are of the view that entire object and purpose of insertion of sub-section 2A in Section 35C by Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) w.e.f. 11.5.2002 and third Proviso by Finance Act, 2013 will stand defeated, if the waiver of pre-deposit is granted indefinitely. The judgment in Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) cannot be interpreted to give powers to the Tribunal to extend the order of waiver of pre-deposit indefinitely. In the circumstances, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
