- (1.) IT is submitted by Shri Ashok Singh that Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed gross error in law in granting unconditional stay order relying upon the stay order dated 15 -11 -2011 in Garg Industries v. CCE, Noida in respect of the same party. It is submitted by him that unconditional stay cannot be granted indefinitely. The stay order dated 15 -11 -2011 has expired in view of insertion of sub -section (2A) of Section 35C by Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002 (20/2002), w.e.f. 11 -5 -2002 and the 3rd proviso of which the intention would be defeated, if the waiver of pre -deposit is granted indefinitely. He relies upon a judgment of this Court in Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. M/s. J.P. Transformers decided on 8 -10 -2013, in which a direction was issued to finally decide the appeal expeditiously, and if possible within a period of six months from the date of extension dated 3 -6 -2013. The Court allowed waiver of pre -deposit to continue valid only up to the period of six months from its last extension dated 3 -6 -2013. In the present case relying upon an order, which has otherwise expired, the Tribunal could not have granted unconditional stay indefinitely.
(2.) THE affidavit of service has been filed. The appeal is admitted on the question of law as follows: - i. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in granting unconditional stay in the present case applying the ratio of Stay Order No. 1299 -1300/2011 -EX, dated 15 -11 -2011 on the ground of identical set of facts and circumstances. ii. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in holding that demand against M/s. D.P. Garg & Co. can only be sustainable in case if the other four units are put to notice whose clearances were clubbed with M/s. D.P. Garg & Co. ignoring the plethora of evidences put forth by the department regarding financial dependability, management control and common identity in the eyes of the customers.
(3.) AS an interim measure we direct that since the unconditional stay would have operated only w.e.f. 8 -4 -2013 for a period of six months, which has since expired, the order of unconditional stay would not be operative in favour of the respondent. The respondent may persuade the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously.;