https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109624 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to legal flaws regarding the condonation application and absence of a specific order on condonation of delay. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering all relevant aspects raised by both parties, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of timing issues and pending appeals. The argument that the department's silence implied acceptance of the declaration was rejected, clarifying that silence did not equate to acceptance under the Central Excise Act or Rules. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:55:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109624 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to legal flaws regarding the condonation application and absence of a specific order on condonation of delay. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering all relevant aspects raised by both parties, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of timing issues and pending appeals. The argument that the department's silence implied acceptance of the declaration was rejected, clarifying that silence did not equate to acceptance under the Central Excise Act or Rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109624