TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is distinct and this distinction has a bearing on the interpretation of the 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act. Since we discern a strong prima-facie case in support of the proposition that the Tribunal has the power to grant extension of stay beyond the period of 365 days from the initial grant of stay (wherever the delay in disposal of an appeal is not on account on any fault of the assessee), inter-alia , in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Narang Overseas (P) Ltd., (2007 (7) TMI 5 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY), we direct the respondents in the application/appeal not to take any coercive steps for realisation of the assessed liabilities, till disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tives representing Revenue Shri Govind Dixit and Shri Amresh Jain. 4. Learned Counsel for appellants contend that the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f . 01.05.2008 and the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended w.e.f . 10.05.2013 are not identical; that the expression even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee , occurring in the third proviso to Section 254( 2A) of the Income Tax Act does not find place in the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act, and that this difference in the phraseology of the two provisions has clear legal consequences, relying on the judgment of the Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation Limited and M/s Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited respectively, in the light, of the fact that the language of the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is distinct and this distinction has a bearing on the interpretation of the 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act. 6. As a Division Bench of this Tribunal has recorded a conclusion as to the interpretation of the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act (vide the orders dated 10.06.2014 and 18.08.2014, referred to supra), we consider it appropriate to refer the issue (as to the proper interpretation of provision of Section 35C( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Central Excise Act, 1944, the applicability and relevance of the pronouncements of the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, rendered in the context of provisions of the Income Tax Act, to interpretation of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944, requires to be considered, by the Larger Bench. 10. Having regard to the issue referred for consideration of the Larger Bench (supra) and since we discern a strong prima-facie case in support of the proposition that the Tribunal has the power to grant extension of stay beyond the period of 365 days from the initial grant of stay (wherever the delay in disposal of an appeal is not on account on any fault of the assessee) , inter-alia , in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
