Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Reliable Safety Glass and Shri Sandeep Gangal, Managing Director

;stay order - challenged by deptt.--order dated 27.1.2004 in substance amounts to a fresh stay order. high court cannot construe the second proviso to section 35 c(2a) to mean that merely because the initial stay order stood vacated, there can be no fresh stay order. in fact if such an interpretation is taken it would mean that a party would suffer merely because of the default of the tribunal in expeditiously disposing of his appeal such interpretation should be eschewed as it would not be in the interest of the justice. - m. katju, j.1.this appeal has been filed under section 35g of the central excise act against the impugned order of the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal dated 27.1.2004.2. a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.1.2004 shows, that the tribunal has partly heard the appeal and it has extended the stay order dated 13.6.2003.3. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the second proviso to section 35c(2a) of the central excise act, 1944 the stay order dated 13.6.2003 stood vacated.4. in our opinion the order dated 27.1.2004 in substance amounts to a fresh stay order. we cannot construe the second proviso to section 35c(2a) to mean that merely because the initial stay order stood vacated, there can be no fresh stay order. in fact if such an interpretation is taken it would mean that a party would suffer merely because of the default of the tribunal in expeditiously disposing of his appeal. in our opinion such interpretation should be eschewed as it would not be in the interest of the justice.5. we therefore dismiss this appeal but direct that the tribunal shall decide the appeal pending before it very expeditiously.