TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 (10) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (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. - delay in taking up these appeals is not attributable to the appellants - Stay extended. - Misc Application No.50417 of 2015 , Service Tax Appeal No.861 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - R K Singh, Member (T) And Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (J), JJ. For the Appellant : Ms Nupu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is incidental and ancillary. It was held that an express grant of statutory power carries with it, by necessary implication, the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. The Supreme Court, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grant stay beyond a certain period. Consequently its abolition can only have an effect that fetters which the said sub-section sought to place on the Tribunal with regard to the duration beyond which CESTAT could not grant 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
