TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2016. 3.The litigation to this Court commenced with the passing of the order-in-original dated 29.10.2010, which was assailed by the appellant before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) [in short 'CST (A)'], after the period of limitation had expired. There was a delay of nine (9) months in filing the appeal before the CST (A). Consequently, the CST (A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.12.2014, as it was preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act'). 3.1.Admittedly, thereafter, for a period of one (1) year, no steps were taken to assail the order of the CST (A). Consequently, the Department issued two recovery notices dated 08.12.2015 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in these circumstances, that the present appeal has been preferred before us. 5.Mr.Ayyamperumal, who appears in support of the appeal, assails the order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds: (i).The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the order-in-original was passed in breach of principles of natural justice. (ii).That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of : Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P., (2006) 197 ELT 465 (SC). (iii).That the order of the CST (A) could not have merged with the order-in-original, as held by learned Single Judge, since, there was no decision on merits. (iv).That the learned Single Judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, result in a very peculiar situation, which is, that by a side-wind, we would have emasculated the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the first round of its efficacy. 7.4. It is settled law that statutory forums and/or Courts, can and/or do decide matters both rightly and wrongly, albeit, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions. Erroneous orders of statutory forums and/or courts can only be corrected by a procedure known to law. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in this behalf in Ujjam Bai V. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1621, at pages 1629 to 1631 (paragraphs 15 to 17), being opposite, are extracted hereunder : "15. Whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal is empowered or required to enquire ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s set aside on appeal. 16. In Malkarjun V. Narhari, (1901) ILR 25 Bom 337 (P.C.), the Privy Council dealt with a case in which a sale took place after notice had been wrongly served upon a person who was not the legal representative of the judgment-debtor's estate, and the executing court had erroneously decided that he was to be treated as such representative. The Privy Council said : "In so doing the Court was exercising its jurisdiction. It made a sad mistake, it is true; but a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right. If it decides wrong, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right; and if that course is not taken the decision, however wrong, cannot be disturbed" (page 3....