Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.60 seconds)
Larsen & Toubro Limited vs The Union Of India And Others on 1 February, 2013 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 27 February, 2001

11. We have already noted earlier that the Central Excise Act 1944 has introduced provisions by which a time limit has been legislated for the disposal of appeals. But the time limit is obviously not inflexible because sub section (4A) of Section 35A which governs the disposal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) and sub section (2A) of Section 35C which governs the disposal of appeals by the Tribunal prescribe periods for disposal "where it is possible to do so". As regards stay applications, the second proviso to Section 35F requires the Commissioner (Appeals) again "where it is possible to do so to decide an application for stay within thirty days from the date of its filing". In regard to the Appellate Tribunal sub section (2A) of Section 35C was introduced by Amending Act 20 of 2002. Under the first proviso, it came to be stipulated that where an order of stay is made in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under Section 35B(1), the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of such order. The second proviso stipulated that if such an appeal is not disposed of within that period, the stay order shall on the expiry of that period stand vacated. Now the reason why the Appellate Tribunal may not be able to dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days may have no bearing on the conduct of the assessee, but on the availability of sufficient judicial and administrative infrastructure for the disposal of appeals. Undoubtedly, in a given case the failure of a judicial body to dispose of the appeal expeditiously may be the consequence of dilatory tactics by the assessee, but that is not necessarily so. This issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court in a judgment in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Supreme Court noted that sub section (2A) of Section 35C was a provision which has been 2 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434 (S.C.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:37:17 ::: PNP 11/17 WP878-1.2 made by Parliament to curb dilatory tactics of those assesses who, having got an interim order in their favour, seek to continue their operation by delaying the disposal of the proceedings, thus, depriving the revenue not only of the benefit of the assessed value, but of a decision on points which may have an impact on other cases. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the provision cannot be interpreted to punish an assessee whose appeal has not been disposed of within the stipulated time limit for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The Supreme Court observed as follows :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 Next