9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 384 - HC - Central ExciseSSI Exemption- clubbing of clearance- Applications in accordance with law the Tribunal has disposed of Ratification Applications only on the ground that the petitioners had filed applications on 11-10-2006 in the order passed in the year 2002 i.e. after six months and hence applications are barred by limitation. Held that- We are of the opinion that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is highly deprecated. When the petitioners case is claimed to be covered by the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court or even by the Circular issued by the department the Tribunal should have decided the issue considering these two aspects of the matter. Since this has not been done - It is very unfortunate that the Tribunal has not considered the order of this Court in its proper perspective and overlooked the circumstances under which the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the said petitions.
Issues:
Petition under Article 226 to quash Tribunal's order on Excise Rectification of Mistake Application. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the Tribunal's order on Excise Rectification of Mistake Application. The Court issued notice for final disposal of the petition. The main issue was the Tribunal's disposal of Ratification Applications based on a limitation ground, despite the petitioners being allowed by the Court to withdraw petitions and file Misc. Applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal overlooked the Court's order and did not consider the submissions made regarding errors in the Tribunal's original order. The Court had noted that the issue was covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and a Circular issued by the department. The Court opined that the Tribunal should have considered these aspects before rejecting the Ratification of Mistake Application solely on the ground of limitation. The Court found the Tribunal's approach to be highly deprecated and unsustainable in law or on facts. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on merits, considering the Apex Court's decision and the Circular issued by the department. The petition was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute without costs.
|
