Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (11) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the appellant is justified and extension of stay is accordingly granted to the appellant for a further period of 180 days - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Limited [2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Extension of stay granted. - Appeal No. : C/40/2011 - ORDER No. M/14218/2014 - Dated:- 1-10-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R. ORDER Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This extension application was filed by the appellant requesting for extension of stay granted by this Bench. The Hon ble High Court vide a common order dated 09.07.2014, in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... king / reasoned order or not? As observed hereinabove, the learned Appellate Tribunal can extend the stay granted earlier beyond the period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, however, on being subjectively satisfied by the learned Appellate Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee / appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, is not attributable to the appellant / assessee and that the assessee is not at fault and therefore, while considering each application for extension of stay, the learned Appellate Tribunal is required to consider the facts of each case and arrive at subjective satisfaction in ea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xtension of stay afresh and pass a detailed speaking order in each of the matters in light of the observations made hereinabove. 6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, question No.1 is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and it is held that in case and having satisfied that delay in not disposing of the appeal within 365 days (total) from the date of grant of initial stay is not attributable to the appellant / assessee in whose favour stay has been granted and that the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that such appellant / assessee has fully cooperated in early disposal of the appeal and/or has not indulged into any delay tactics and/or has not taken any undue advantage, the learned Appellate T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the individual case and pass a speaking order, as stated hereinabove. By the aforesaid it may also not be understood that the Appellate Tribunal may go on extending the stay indefinitely and may not dispose of the appeals within stipulated time i.e. within 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay and/or at the earliest. All efforts shall be made by the learned Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeals at the earliest more particularly in a case where stay is operative against the revenue. The learned Appellate Tribunal and/or registrar of the Appellate Tribunal is required to maintain separate register with respect to the appeals in which stay has been granted fully and/or partially and appeals in which no stay has been granted a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for final disposal. 5. Learned departmental representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that extension sought for by the appellant should not be allowed now, even if the extensions were earlier allowed by the Bench as the statutory provisions do not permit it. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the case records that after granting stay to the appellant on 20.03.2012 whenever the case was called for hearing the same was found to be linked to an appeal to the higher courts on the same issue. The adjournments granted in this case do not convey that the same were granted on account of any flimsy grounds taken by the appellant. There is no fault on the part of the appellant in the pendency of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates