TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursue recovery proceedings - decided in favor of assessee. - Writ Tax No. - 375 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2014 - Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,CJ And Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,JJ. For the Petitioner :- Ashish Bansal,Prupesh Kumar For the Respondent : A. S. G. I. ,Ashok Singh ORDER Following a notice to show-cause dated 5 February 2007, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA passed an order of adjudication on 26 April 2010 confirming a demand for central excise duty in the amount of ₹ 17,25,261/- together with interest and imposing a penalty of ₹ 17 lacs. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30 September 2010. The petitioner lodged an appeal before the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5B, the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order: Provided further that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order shall, on the expiry of that period, stand vacated. Provided also that where such appeal is not disposed off 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 off the appeal is not attributable to such party, extend the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit, not exceeding one hundred and eighty five days, and in case the appeal is not so disposed off wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e delay in the disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the conduct of the party which has obtained an order of stay. Undoubtedly, where the delay has been occasioned by the conduct of the party itself, the Court would be justified in declining to extend the order of stay. In the present case, the facts would indicate that the appeal was initially listed before the Tribunal for final disposal on 7 February 2012. The appeal was, however, adjourned on 7 February 2012, 25 April 2012 and 17 September 2012 since the Tribunal was unable to take up the matter. There has been no negligence, default or wrongful conduct on the part of the petitioner. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the petitioner ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
