https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245470 A miscellaneous application could not be used as a substitute for a statutory appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, especially where that order was not challenged within limitation and the earlier Tribunal order had already been acted upon. The majority held that the final appellate order continued to operate until set aside in proper proceedings, so the Tribunal could not reopen it or grant consequential relief through a miscellaneous application; the challenge therefore failed. The dissent took the view that the earlier Tribunal order had merged with the High Court's determination, the Commissioner (Appeals) order was without jurisdiction, and the application should be treated as an appeal with delay condoned, which would have restored the rebate/refund sanction. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245470 A miscellaneous application could not be used as a substitute for a statutory appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, especially where that order was not challenged within limitation and the earlier Tribunal order had already been acted upon. The majority held that the final appellate order continued to operate until set aside in proper proceedings, so the Tribunal could not reopen it or grant consequential relief through a miscellaneous application; the challenge therefore failed. The dissent took the view that the earlier Tribunal order had merged with the High Court's determination, the Commissioner (Appeals) order was without jurisdiction, and the application should be treated as an appeal with delay condoned, which would have restored the rebate/refund sanction. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245470