9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than two years X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est. The Joint Commissioner relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog, reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 289 (SC). 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 17.08.2004, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot. During the pendency of the appeal, on 27.11.2004, the petitioner reversed the credit taken on the explosives used in mines following the binding precedent of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog (supra). The Commissioner disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 04.02.2005 reducing the penalty from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.10,000/-. Since the subject matter of the order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the reasonable period. The CESTAT also held that appeal related to short period and does not involve large amount considering the status of the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 8. In the memo of petition a contention was raised that the order passed by the CESTAT, Commissioner (Appeals) and Joint Commissioner are ex facie perverse, illegal and wholly incorrect in law and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeal on the technical grounds of limitation had resulted in failure of justice inasmuch as by doing so the CESTAT has made the petitioner as victim of law on account of changing legal position. Techni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, the Tribunal has considered that the petitioner has accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and since the stake involved is very small, the application for condonation of delay was rejected. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court has no relevance as in the present case, there was no proper explanation of delay of one year after the Honourable Supreme Court's decision. Even otherwise the amount is very small as the Appeal is filed against the penalty retained by the Commissioner (Appeal) to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each in all the three cases. 10. Thus, taking over all view of the matter, we are of the view that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
