COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. PAUL TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a stay application filed by the Revenue. Although this stay application filed by the Revenue does not indicate the statutory provision under which the Revenue is seeking the stay of the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), there is a prayer for staying against grant of service tax already deposited by the party. It is clarified that the application is to prevent the respondent from claiming refund of service tax already paid by it on the strength of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). According to the learned authorized DR, this application may be treated as having been made under the provisions of Rule 41. Rule 41 is reproduced below for ready reference:

(2.) THE Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.

(3.) THE learned DR emphasizes on the need "to secure the ends of justice'. He further argues that under similar circumstances, this Tribunal had stayed the orders of the lower authorities during the pendency of the hearing vide Tribunal's order in CCE Raipur v. Shri Prakash Industries Stay Order No. S/121/2006 -ST, dated 7 -4 -2006 2006 (3) S.T.R. 204 (T).