HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 disables CESTAT of the power to grant extension of stay beyond 365 days from the initial grant of an order of stay, notwithstanding that the delay in disposal of a appeal is occasioned not on account of any conduct of the appellant?

(2.) IS the issue referred for consideration by this Bench, by the order dated 02.07.2014 in Misc. application No. 52111 of 2014 in ST Appeal No. 00097 of 2009. Later a few other appeals wherein misc. applications were filed seeking extension of orders of stay, on the ground that stay orders earlier granted stood vacated in view of the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), were also ordered to be placed before this Bench, as the same issue is involved in those applications as well. Heard Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, Puneet Agarwal, Ajay Agarwal and other learned Counsel appearing for the several applicants, Sh. J.K. Mittal, Id. Counsel representing the Advocates association; and Shri Govind Dixit, Id. AR representing Revenue. Sub -section (2A) was inserted in Section 35C of the Act w.e.f. 11.05.2002 by Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002 (Central Act 20 of 2002). On its introduction in 2002, this provision read as under:

(3.) A third proviso was introduced to the above sub -section w.e.f. 10.05.2013, by Section 98 of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013). This proviso read: