Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd on 25 September, 2014 cites

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

In the facts of these cases too, CESTAT having extended the period of stay on a good cause i.e., it had large number of appeals pending hearing and was satisfied that the appeals could not be heard and disposed of by reason of that of the Tribunal not attributable to the assessee, the observation of the Apex Court in Kumar Cotton Mills' case, is apposite.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Ipcl vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 27 January, 2005

"6. The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay applications are not disposed within the time specified. The reasoning of the Tribunal expressed in the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra) cannot be faulted. However we should not be understood as holding that any latitude is given to the Tribunal to extend the period of stay except on good cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed of by reason 1 2005 (180) ELT 434 (SC) 7 of the fault of the Tribunal for reasons not attributable to the assessee."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1