Court allows delayed appeal in duty payment dispute; no substantial legal question found. Parties agree on appeal disposal.

The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The appeal centered on a duty payment dispute in a contract, where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. No substantial legal question was found for appeal admission due to pending value determination. The parties reached a consensus for appeal disposal, and the Court directed dissemination of the judgment to all concerned parties for compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Dispute regarding duty payment on escalated amount in a contract.
3. Consideration of substantial question of law for appeal admission.
4. Recording of undertaking by the assessee company.
5. Disposal of appeal by consent of parties.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the Court considering an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court, after hearing the counsel and perusing the application, condones the delay based on the grounds stated in the petition, allowing and disposing of the application.

2. The main issue in the appeal was the dispute regarding the payment of duty on an escalated amount in a contract. The assessee had already paid duty on the received value of goods, while the demand was for an additional amount claimed under an escalation clause in the contract. The Tribunal had set aside the demand order in favor of the assessee, considering that the assessee had not received the additional amount as per the contract terms.

3. The Court, after reviewing the matter, found no substantial question of law to admit the appeal. It was noted that the assessee had given an undertaking to promptly pay the excise duty if the escalated amount was received, and the value had not yet been determined. The Court recorded the undertaking but did not admit the application due to the pending determination of the value.

4. The judgment further mentions that by the consent of the parties, the appeal was heard and disposed of based on the terms discussed, indicating an amicable resolution between the parties involved in the dispute.

5. Finally, the Court directed all concerned parties to act on a Xerox signed copy of the order and provided for the supply of an urgent Xerox certified copy of the order upon application, subject to compliance with formalities. This ensured the proper dissemination of the judgment to the relevant parties for further action as required.

---