2014 (10) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition by stating that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of sixty days from the date of the order-in-original. 4. It is true that the petitioner has to exhaust the appeal remedy. But, this Court is convinced that the petitioner need not have approached the appellate authority, since the impugned order is vitiated with an error apparent on the face of the record and impugned order was the outcome of total non-application of mind and utter disregard to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and stay was granted by the CESTAT. 5. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the subject matter of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and final orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal Nos. 12 & 13/2013 (M-II) dated 30-1-2013. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the order in appeal dated 30-1-2013, is already in their favour and enclosed the copy of the order. Thereafter, the first respondent has taken up the matter and has passed the impugned order. 6. It is to be noted that in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the copy of the Order in Appeal Nos. 12 & 13 (M-II), dated 30-1-2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, has been allowed in favour of the petitioner and a similar case relating to the earlier period was also referred to. 7. Never....