TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency was unable to take up the appeal. In the light of the foregoing, we reject the contention of ld. Departmental Representative and. having regard to the fact that the delay in taking up these appeals is not attributable to the appellants, extend the stay granted earlier to operate during the pendency thereof. - Stay extended. - Application No. ST/Misc/51154/2015-CU (DB), Appeal No. ST/576/2009-CU (DB) - - - Dated:- 13-4-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And R. K. Singh, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Kanchana Yadav, Adv. ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the appellant seeking extension of stay granted by the Tribunal earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) has held that the Tribunal functions as a court within the limits of its jurisdiction and being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. It was held in paragraph 8 of the judgment that, certain powers, are recognised as incidental and ancillary not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. This Tribunal has, therefore, inherent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant stay no longer exist. In other words, with the abolition of Section 35C(2A) ibid with effect from 06.08.2014, the power of the Tribunal with regard to grant of stay in no way got attenuated. Even during the existence of sub-section 35C(2A) of the Act (i.e. prior to 06.08.2014), the Tribunal in the case of Halidram India Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi [2014 (309) ELT (Tri. - LB)] held that the Tribunal had power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days in cases where appellant was ready and willing to pursue the appeal, but the Tribunal owing to the older pendency was unable to take up the appeal. In the light of the foregoing, we reject the contention of ld. Departmental Representative and. having regard to the fact that the delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
