9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Shri Gaurang H. Bhatt, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petitions. For the purpose of this order, we may record facts arising in Special Civil Application No. 14936 of 2012. 2. Petitioner has challenged an Order-in-Original dated 30-9-2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax. Petition arises in following background : 2.1 Petitioner is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical drugs. Petitioner s factory is located in GIDC, Kansari, Anand. Petitioner, in addition to manufacturing such drugs, under its own licence, also carries out manufacturing activities on loan licence basis. The issue of excisability, in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions contained in Central Excise Act, 1944, do not permit the Appellate Commissioner to extend limitation beyond a maximum period of 30 days, the petitioner has, before us, challenged very order-in-original questioning the very basis for passing such an order. 4. We are conscious that when the Legislature provides for a period of limitation and also further provides that, delay, if any, can be condoned only up to a certain period and not beyond, the Commissioner in not entertaining the petitioner s appeal, committed no error. Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had, all along, filed appeals against orders passed before and after the Order-in-Original impugned in this petition. It was simply because due to some lapse, cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of circumstances beyond their control, such assessees can invoke the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but, of course, not as a matter of right. 6. In the present case, we find that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not being able to prefer appeal within the time permitted. It is a case where, if the petition is not entertained, great injustice would cause to the petitioner. In case of the petitioner, the issues are covered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of decision of Appellate Commissioner and Tribunal. Such decisions were not taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. Petitioner had paid duty on clearances made of the goods manufactured on loan licences. Such duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
