9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period i.e., 16.08.2011. The same was rejected by the authority on 15.02.2012, which order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). Whether the date of the original order has to be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of computing the limitation or the date on which the ROM Order was passed, has to be considered as the relevant date? - Held that:- The issue stands considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sree Lotus Exports vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy [2011 (6) TMI 360 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and in the case of United Corporation vs. Commissioner of C. EX. Chandigarh [2015 (6) TMI 1033 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it stands held that the time period of filing appeal has to be reckoned from the date of rejection of ROM A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Allahabad High Court, who vide its order dated 04.04.2017 set aside the order of the Tribunal by observing that inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the matter on merits and has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, the Tribunal has to first decide as to whether the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the limitation period or not. 2. Accordingly the matter stands fixed today and we have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri G.S. Bisht ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh ld. AR for the Revenue. 3. As per facts on record, an order was passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority on 30.11.2010 which was admittedly recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars and admittedly the ROM was filed by the assessee within the said period i.e., 16.08.2011. The same was rejected by the authority on 15.02.2012, which order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The issue as to whether the date of the original order has to be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of computing the limitation or the date on which the ROM Order was passed, has to be considered as the relevant date. We find that the issue stands considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sree Lotus Exports vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy reported at 2011 (24) S.T.R. 444 (Tri. Chennai) and in the case of United Corporation vs. Commissioner of C. EX. Chandigarh reported at 2016 (41) S.T.R. 494 (Tri. Del.), it s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
