9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x years was to be excluded from the period of limitation, merely because the learned Single Judge did not direct further to decide the Appeal on merits, in our opinion, the learned CESTAT should not have dismissed the Appeal on the same ground without deciding the merits of the Appeal. Even both the first Appellate Authority and the final Appellate Authority ought to have decided the Appeal on merits at least after the intervention of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order passed by the first Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal are set aside and the Appeal is restored to the Commissioner(Appeals) where the parties may appear in the first instance without any further notice on 12.9.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble High Court, it is very much clear that there is no direction to decide the appeal on merit and there is no room for any confusion . The case laws cited by Ld. counsel for appellant as to the issue of demand of duty on Aluminium Dross cannot be considered for the reason that the appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) is time barred. 5. Following the decision of the Apex Court in Singh Enterprises (supra), we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is therefore rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran urged before us that against the adjudication order, the Assessee had preferred a writ petition before this court in W.P.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years was to be excluded from the period of limitation, merely because the learned Single Judge did not direct further to decide the Appeal on merits, in our opinion, the learned CESTAT should not have dismissed the Appeal on the same ground without deciding the merits of the Appeal. Though we find that the Appeal filed before the first Authority viz., Commissioner(Appeals) itself was filed with a delay of 391 days as the Order in Original was dated 17.7.2006, but, the Appeal was filed on 16.8.2007 and from a big Company like the present Appellant, this kind of huge delay could not have been expected, but, the learned counsel submitted that since the Order in Original was not duly received but, later on upon proof of such service produced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
