9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay was not within the hands of the concerned Commissioner. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. - Vs MST Katiji & Ors. (1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court) and State of Nagaland Vs LIPOK AO (2005 (4) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) relied on by the counsel for the appellant is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. In the circumstances, without going into the questions of law raised, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. - Order of Tribunal is set aside - Decidedin favour of Revenue. - C.M.A. NO. 1502 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2015 - R. SUDHAKAR AND R. KAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Railways, differential duty is paid. Due to escalation, price of the the material cost/labour is not possible to be given at a given point of time. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Vellore, finalized the provisional assessment for the period from March, 2003 to September, 2003 under rule 7 (3) of the Central Excise Rules and demanded interest of ₹ 42,484/= on the differential duty. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against which the Revenue preferred appeal, however with an application seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal rejected the said application seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay occurred to convene the Committee because the Commissioners comprising the Committee were pre-occupied with the work relating to the standing committee and other administrative reasons which were neither deliberate nor intentional. 6. From the above explanation offered by the appellant, it is clear that a decision was taken by a Committee of Commissioners and, therefore, there is no scope for the concerned Commissioner to interdict and seek for earlier review by the Committee. The delay was not within the hands of the concerned Commissioner. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag Anr. - Vs MST Katiji Ors. (1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC)) and State of Nagaland Vs LIPOK AO (2005 (183) ELT 337 (SC)) reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
