2012 (12) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PRESENTED BY : Shri Nagesh Pathak, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. - Vide this order we propose to dispose 12 similar applications for condonation of delay of almost one and a half year in filing of the respective appeals originating from the common order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 1st of April 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra) was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further alleged that subsequently in the matter of CCE, Jallandhar v. A.G. Flats Ltd., the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 648-661 of 2011-EX., dated 25-7-2011 and also reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 96 (Tri.-Del.) took the view that dismissal of civil appeals in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra). 4. Learned Shri Amit Awasthi, Counsel for the respondents has refuted the contention of the appellant. He submits that once the Committee of Commissioners had decided not to prefer appeal against the impugned order, the order stood accepted and attained finality. Therefore, just because of view taken by the Tribunal in its subsequent order in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra). This reason in our considered view is not sufficient to condone the delay for the reason that Committee of Commissioners has accepted the impugned orders of Appellate Commissioner after considering all the aspects of the matter. Therefore, the order has attained finality, as such, the issue cannot be reopened only because in a subs....