TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chitkara, Addl.Commr.(A.R.) For Respondent: Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This miscellaneous application is filed by the Revenue seeking restoration of the appeal dismissed earlier by this Tribunal on 07.01.2010 for want of clearance from Committee on Disputes (COD). The learned Authorised Representative Shri Sameer Chitkara, for the Revenue submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Refunds), Chennai - 2015 (323) ELT 303 (Mad.), Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court in the case of Engineering Projects (India) Ltd Vs CCE Meghalaya - 2014 (36) STR 1220 (Meghalaya). 3. The learned Advocate Shri Anand Nainawati for the respondent submitted that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE &C Vs Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd in his judgment dt.12.04.2015 (Tax Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initially filed bearing No.1455/2007 and later another Appeal No. 1/2010 was filed with condonation of delay as the Revenue was required to file two appeals, instead of one appeal. Hon'ble High Court, taking note of the ONGCs case, dismissed their appeal with liberty to apply for revival as and when clearance would be obtained from the Committee on Disputes. It is his contention that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restoration of appeal dismissed earlier for want of clearance from COD. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground of delay. While considering the fact of the case as a whole, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the delay in filing the Restoration application cannot be the ground for rejection as while dismissing their appeals, liberty was extended to the Revenue ....