ORDER
M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This stay application is directed against order-in-appeal which has declined to interfere in the attachment order.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants purchased a factory land from Rajasthan Financial Corporation. The Central Excise department had some confirmed demand against the old factory and the same was not paid by the original factory owner. The Central Excise department issued many notices to the appellants for recovery of the confirmed demand. The appellants replied them stating that they are not liable to pay the amount. The Revenue authorities vide notice of attachment dated 13-7-2005 attached the land and building of the appellants. Against this order the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who declined to interfere in the attachment proceedings.
3. Learned Advocate submits that as per the attachment which has been executed by the authorities the auction of the same land and building is to take place on 19-4-2006, hence, he requests for interference for stopping the said action.
4. Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that power of granting stay are enshrined in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which does not empower the Tribunal to interfere in such matters.
5. Considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that in this case there is no question of any stay of duty or penalty as there is no quantification. The Tribunal being a creature of statute cannot go beyond the provisions of Central Excise Act. Since the attachment was done by the authorities as early as July, 2005 and the property is sought to be auctioned 19-4-2006, the appellants should have taken appropriate legal action to restrain the authorities to. To my mind the application for stay in this case is infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)