9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has challenged Order-in-Original No.157/2022-ST, dated 30.12.2022, on the ground that the respondent has wrongly invoked the larger period of limitation under Proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and confirmed the demand. 2. It is further submitted that the impugned order proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner has suppressed the materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disbelieved by the respondent. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that there are several disputed questions of facts and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Appellate Commissioner and therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so before the Appellate Commissioner as also before the CESTAT. 8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the issues are left open including the issue relating to limitation. No costs. Consequently, conne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
