- (1.) THE curation of formal defects, pointed out by the Registry, is dispensed with.
(2.) THE explanation given by learned counsel appearing for the Department, for condonation of delay, is found good and sufficient. The delay is accordingly condoned.
(3.) ALL these Central Excise Appeals have filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the Department, with substantial questions of law, as follows: - "Central Excise Appeal No.40/2014: i. Whether the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in continuing the stay order dated 02.07.2012, till further orders, especially when the rules framed under the Act of 1944 were overlooked? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in overlooking the insertion of third proviso in Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide the Finance Act, 2013 and thereafter by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd., 2005 180 ELT 434? Central Excise Appeal No.28/2014: i. Whether the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in continuing the stay order dated 21.9.2012, till further orders, especially when the provisions framed under the Act of 1944 were overlooked? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in overlooking the insertion of third proviso in Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide the Finance Act, 2013 and thereafter by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd, 2005 180 ELT 434? Central Excise Appeal No.41/2014: i. Whether the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in continuing the stay order dated 15.12.2011, till further orders, especially when the rules framed under the Act of 1944 were overlooked? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in overlooking the insertion of third proviso in Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide the Finance Act, 2013 and thereafter by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd., 2005 180 ELT 434? "Central Excise Appeal No.42/2014: i. Whether the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in continuing the stay order dated 21.09.2012, till further orders, especially when the rules framed under the Act of 1944 were overlooked? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in overlooking the insertion of third proviso in Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide the Finance Act, 2013 and thereafter by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd, 2005 180 ELT 434? Central Excise Appeal No.44/2014: i. Whether the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in continuing the stay order dated 01.01.2013, till further orders, especially when the rules framed under the Act of 1944 were overlooked? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in overlooking the insertion of third proviso in Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide the Finance Act, 2013 and thereafter by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd, 2005 180 ELT 434 - All the Central Excise Appeals arise out of the orders dated 17.04.2014 (Appeals No.40/2014 and 42/2014), 15.04.2014 (Appeal No.28/2014), 10.07.2014 (Appeal No.41/2014) and 29.04.2014 (Appeal No.44/2014), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'CESTAT), by which the interim stay orders, as granted, were directed to continue, until further orders, on the ground that the delay in hearing of the appeals beyond 180 days, was for no fault on the part of the appellants, and thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kumar Cotton Mills P. Ltd, 2005 180 ELT 434, the interim orders were allowed to continue, till further orders.;