TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944 and reminded the appellant that, as the stay order stood vacated with the expiry of 180 days, they were liable to pay up the dues - Held that: The stay granted by Bench is one which was meant to operate till final disposal of the appeal - The pendency of the appeal is not attributable to the conduct of the appellant - Therefore make it clear that our order of stay of recovery of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of that order, the appellant filed an application for extension of stay, registered as S.T./Misc/265/2010. Meanwhile, the appellant received a demand notice dt. 16-8-2010 from the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner, wherein the appellant was directed to pay the dues immediately. The said notice referred to the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and reminded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
