9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay that the Committee of Commissioners took a mistaken view of the law that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the civil appeal did lay down the law and confirmed the legal position settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 419 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) is not sufficient to accept as Committee of Commissioners has accepted the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.-Bang.), it is alleged in the applications that the department had preferred Civil Appeals No. 218-220 of 2010 [2011 (274) E.L.T. A16 (S.C.)] against the judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra), the SLP, however, was dismissed by the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the matter of CCE, Jallandhar v. A.G. Flats Ltd. (supra), the Department has decided to prefer appeal against the impugned order. It is submitted that the delay in filing of appeal has resulted because of mistaken interpretation of the dismissal of Civil Appeal against the order in CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra). 3. Shri Nagesh Pathak, learned AR for the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to M/s. Mantora Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others vide Miscellaneous order No. 431-438 of 2012-EX has dismissed the applications of the Department for condonation of delay moved on similar ground. Respondents have thus pressed for dismissal of applications for condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The cause shown for delay is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
