9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1,07,787.00 (Basic) and Rs. 5389.35 (Special) was denied by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Cuttack Division vide his Order-in-Original No. 17(85)15/207/230/89, dated 28-9-1990, on the ground that the same was not available on the basis of Despatch Challans of M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., Cuttack. Being aggrieved with the said Order of the Assistant Commissioner, M/s. Konark Wires (P) Ltd. filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 5/BBSR/91, dated 29-1-1991 set aside the above order of the Assistant Commissioner as barred by limitation. The relevant paragraph of the Commissioner (Appeals') Order is as under :- "Without going into the merits of the case, the impugned Order is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions carefully. The issue in this case is that the party has taken credit, on receipt of Order-in-Appeal No. 5/BBSR/91, dated 29-1-1991 but perusal of the said Order-in-appeal shows that the said order does not in anyway authorise the party to take credit. In the absence of any order or direction of the competent authority the availment of credit is irregular. The party's contention that they have debited the amount on the assurance given by the Range superintendent that in the event of getting a favourable order they will take credit is not substantiated as no (sic) the party could not produce any such letter of the Superintendent. The letter written by them to Superintendent cannot be taken as evidence until and unless Superintendent h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner concerned in denying them this benefit that the Commissioner (Appeals') Order was not on merits and hence the respondents' contention that the Order was in their favour was not acceptable, is not only erroneous but reflects upon the attitude of the adjudicating authority also. whether the Order passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside by the higher appellate authority either on merits or on time-bar, legal effect of the said setting aside of the Order of the adjudicating authority, is the same in both the cases. No differentiation can be made in cases of setting aside of Orders on merits. The Assistant Commissioner was not at all justified in denying the respondents in reaping the fruits of litigation which went in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
