Any Stay Order passed by the Tribunal, if is in force beyond August 7, 2014, shall continue till disposal of appeals – No need for filing application for extension
PrintListen to this Article
Any Stay Order passed by the Tribunal, if is in force beyond August 7, 2014, shall continue till disposal of appeals – No need for filing application for extension
We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in the case of Venketeshwara Filaments Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vapi [2014-TIOL-2388-CESTAT-AHM] on following issue:
Issue:
After omission of 1st, 2nd and 3rdprovisos to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2014, is there any requirement to file an application for extension of Stay Order passed by the Tribunal which is in force beyond August 7, 2014?
Facts & background:
Venketeshwara Filaments Pvt. Ltd. & Others (“the Appellants”) were granted Stay by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad which was subsequently extended. That Stay was to coming to an end on August 21, 2014.
Fearing that the Department may initiate coercive action, the Appellants as a precautionary measure, filed applications before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad seeking further Stay in the matter.
The Appellants submitted that since the 1st, 2nd and 3rdprovisos to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the Excise Act”) were omitted by the Finance Act, 2014, the position as on date is that there is no requirement for extension of initial Stay granted and subsequent extensions. It was further submitted that no saving clause is enacted in Section 35C (2A) of the Excise Act and hence once the provisos are omitted nothing survives.
On the other hand, the Revenue submitted that it cannot be the intention and reading of the legislation as initially when the Stay was granted and extended, there was a statutory period of 180 days applicable in the cases where the Stay was initially granted.
Held:
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad after considering the submissions of both the parties and extracting the provisions of Section 35C (2A) of the Excise Act, as they existed before the omission of the provisos by the Finance Act, 2014, initially observed as under:
· The omissions of 1st, 2nd and 3rd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Excise Act now has to be read to the effect that there is no provision for making any further applications for extension of Stay nor Tribunal has powers for hearing and disposing the applications for extension of Stay from August 7, 2014. In the absence of any provisions for hearing and disposing applications for extension of Stay, the applications made by the Appellants herein have to be disposed of as such;
· At the same time, it would also mean that after initial granting of Stay by the Tribunal, Order does not get lapsed. Omission of 1st, 2nd and 3rd proviso would mean that the appeal filed by an assessee needs to be disposed of within a period of 3 years is only the requirement and Stay Orders which has been passed by the Tribunal under the powers mandated by Section 35C of the Excise Act would remain in force.
Therefore, after noting the aforesaid views are fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Krishna Processors [2013-TIOL-72-HC-AHM-CX] wherein reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works [2002-TIOL-188-SC-CX], the Hon’ble Tribunal concluded that any Stay Order passed by the Tribunal, if it is in force beyond August 7, 2014, it would continue till the disposal of the appeals and there is no need for filing any further applications for extension of orders granting Stay either fully or partially.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
MayurVihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 315
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments