- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the department and Sri Ashok Kumar for the opposite party. The appeal by the Revenue arises from an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30 September, 2014.
(2.) The Revenue in the present appeal has formulated the following questions of law:- "(i) Whether, the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in granting waiver of pre-deposit of assessed demand in favour of the respondents during pendency of the appeal or for unlimited period thereby granting the stay ignoring provisions to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 including third proviso made through enactment of Finance Bill, 2013, wherein Hon'ble CESTAT bound to specify the time limit of stay subject to not exceeding 180 days in first time and 185 days in second time granting extension but exceed total time of 365 days. (ii) Whether, the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad vide order dated 8-10-2013, in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur v. M/s. J.P. Transformers, E-21 Panki Industrial area, Site-I, Kanpur has held that entire object and purpose of insertion of sub-section (2A) in Section 35C by Section 140 of Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) w.e.f. 11-5-2002, and third proviso by Finance Act, 2013 will stand defeated, if the waiver of pre-deposit is granted indefinitely. The judgment in Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. cannot be interpreted to give powers to the Tribunal to extend the order of waiver of pre-deposit indefinitely.
(3.) The appeal is admitted on these questions & is by consent finally heard.;