ARIHANT SPINNING MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before us in a writ, praying that a writ be issued quashing letter/order dated 29-4-2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Malerkotla demanding duty, penalty and interest. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly an appeal, filed by the petitioner, is pending adjudication. The Tribunal had granted a stay and even extended the stay order, but the respondents have by relying upon proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") served a demand notice upon the petitioner inferring that the Tribunal cannot grant stay beyond 360 days, in its entirety.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act is directory. The proviso be read down as conferring power upon the Tribunal to extend stay beyond 360 days.

(3.) Reply filed on behalf of respondents in Court today, is taken on record.