9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for correction of mistake of law in the adjudication order. Thus, there is no deliberate delay and the appellant have filed appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of communication dated 09.04.2018 of the Adjudicating Authority. Secondly, I find that the order of the Court below directing to take credit of Rs. 6,60,016/- in the cenvat account vide Order-in-original dated 16.08.2017, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant in compliance of the Stay order dated 29.03.2012 of the Tribunal paid the amount of Rs. 6,60,016/- through cenvat and the interest and penalty of Rs. 5,31,799/- through e-challan. The appeal of the appellant was allowed by the Tribunal vide final order No. A/53129-53130/2017-SM (BR) dated 19.04.2017 and the demand confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it account. As per provisions vide Section 142(6)(a) existing on the date of order, which clarified that if any amount of credit arising out of legacy issued is found admissible to an assessee, shall be refunded to the assessee in cash. 3. Accordingly, the appellant instead of filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), represented before the Adjudicating Authority highlighting change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the appeal as time barred. 4. Appellant is absent on call and filed an application for time, which is rejected. 5. Heard the ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in dismissing the appeal, as appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
