SURESH JAISWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 20 -9 -2012 stay applications were disposed of granting waiver of pre -deposit and stay of all further proceedings for recovery of the adjudicated liability, for a period of six months, on condition of deposit of the 15% of service tax demand in each case, within the period stipulated. The condition has been complied with and deposits as ordered have been made. As six months has elapsed from the date stay was granted, these applications seek extension of stay.

(2.) LEARNED DR Shri Govind Dixit brings to our notice a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CEA No. 277 of 2013 dated 8 -10 -2013. This judgment was pronounced in an appeal preferred by Revenue against an order dated 3 -6 -2013. That order had extended waiver of pre -deposit earlier granted (on 21 -9 -2012), observing that the appeal could not be disposed of within 365 days; for no fault of the assessee and as a prima facie case in favour of the assessee was noticed, while granting the waiver initially.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned DR, this judgment is an authority for the proposition that extension of stay (by the CESTAT), beyond the period of 180 days is impermissible. On a true and fair construction of the judgment of the High Court (supra) we are not persuaded to the view that the decision spells out a rule declaring absence of any authority in the Tribunal to grant extension beyond the period of 180 days or 365 days in all, as an invariable norm. In our considered view the judgment cautions against grant of indefinite stay, as such would lead to possible abuse, on the part of an assessee/appellant.