9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are filed against the common order dated 19-9-2006 made in Misc. Order No. 442 of 2006, Misc. Order No. 443 of 2006, Final Order No. 879 of 2006 and Final Order No. 880 of 2006 respectively by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The impugned orders were passed in the appeals filed by the Department before the Tribunal as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant Department had a bona fide impression that the assessee would have paid the duty at least under Heading 52.06 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As the Department came to know that the duty has not been paid even as per the outcome of the appeals before the first appellate authority under the tariff item, they filed the appeals belatedly. That is precisely the reason for filing ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with law should be taken, particularly when the preamble to the appellate Commissioner's orders suggested such remedy. 6. Apart from that, even on merits, we could see the Commissioner has passed the order in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Supreme Court dated 3-9-2001 dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 6196 of 2001 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
