9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Department-revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the 'Act'), against the order dated 27-6-2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi raising the following substantial question of law :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal can be said to be complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.9.2001 by the adjudicating Authority on coming to the conclusion that the duty has been paid twice. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the revenue came up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also found nothing wrong in the Order-in-Original vide order dated 16-10-2003 and rejected the appeal. 4. The revenue further filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is a mistake apparent on record of the case as the respondent-assessee has filed an application for refund beyond the stipulated period of one year and this question of time bar was raised before the First Appellate Authority and therefore, a mistake apparent on record has crept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation application, vide impugned order the Tribunal has categorically found as under :- "On plain reading the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.10.2003 it is very clear that the appellant (i.e. Revenue in this case) before the First Appellate Authority had not challenged the time bar aspect by refuting the order-in-original with detailed grounds against the time bar. Since the revenue did not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
