Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated July 11, 2014 (annexure A -2) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in granting indefinite stay of proceedings to the recovery of Government dues as adjudicated by the competent authority, contrary to the time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is justified and in accordance with the provisions of law - The facts, in brief, necessary 'for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of parboiling, drying plants, parts and accessories for plants used for parboiling of paddy. The official of the Department visited the factory premises of the assessee and resumed the records pertaining to the purchase of raw material and finished goods, A detailed investigation was conducted and it was found that the goods manufactured by the assessee were not exempted from the levy of excise duty and was liable to pay duties on their clearances beyond the exemption limit during the year 2008 -09 and thereafter for the year 2009 -10 (up to July 1, 2009). Accordingly, a notice dated August 17, 2009 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,00,62,104 along with interest and penalty be not levied. The adjudicating authority vide order dated March 31, 2010 confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty of the equal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated April 8, 2013 (annexure A -1) allowed the stay application unconditionally while dispensing with the condition of pre -deposit of the entire amount of duty, interest and penalty. Thereafter, the Revenue filed miscellaneous application for vacation of stay order dated April 8, 2013 (annexure A -1) before the Tribunal who vide order dated July 11, 2014 (annexure A -2) dismissed the said application. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the order granting unconditional stay was bad as it was beyond the maximum period prescribed under section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Support was drawn from the judgments of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. : [2014] 362 ITR 215 (Delhi) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5086 of 2013 decided on February 21, 2014, the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading P. Ltd. : [2014] 362 ITR 204 (Karn) I.T.A. No. 160 of 2012 decided on July 5, 2012 and the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise v. J.P. Transformers Central Excise Appeal No. 277 of 2013, decided on October 8, 2013. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. No doubt similar provision under the Income -tax Act, 1961 or under this Act had been interpreted in favour of the Revenue in the pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue. In the absence of any finding that the delay was attributed to the assessee, learned counsel for the Revenue was not able to demonstrate that the assessee was responsible in delaying the decision of the appeal in any manner. Further, in Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. : [2014] 362 ITR 215 (Delhi) and J.P. Transformers, the grant of ad interim stay was not vacated but the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. However, in Ecom Gill Coffee Trading P. Ltd. : [2014] 362 ITR 204 (Karn), the appeal before the Tribunal itself stood adjudicated during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. In view of the above, while disposing of the appeal, we direct the Tribunal to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the appeal preferably within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.;