2018 (7) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch delay vis-à- vis relevant facts are summarized herein below for the sake of convenience:- S. No. Date Events 1 31.07.2011 Intimation by the Department 2 08.02.2012 Show Cause Notice No.11/2012-ADC 3 28.03.2012 Order-in-Original No. 8/2012-ADC 4 27.08.2013 Order-in-Appeal No. 279/2013 5 27.09.2013 VCES application made 6 15.11.2013 VCES application rejected 7 24.01.2014 Appeal filed before the Commr.(Appeals) against VCES rejection 8 11.02.2014 Appeal returned stating that there was no provision for appeal under VCES 9 11.06.2015 Order in Writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court directing the Commr.(Appeals) to dispose of the appeal on merits.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of rejection or declaration passed by the designated authority under Section 106 (2) of the Act, 1994? 3. After considering the rival submissions, the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the impugned order ie., OIA dated 11.02.2014 passed by the commissioner (Appeals) has appealable and consequently, the same was set aside with the direction to the Ld. Commissioner to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner passed an order dated 22.01.2016 rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. Against this order of the Ld. Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before this forum which came to be dismissed in terms of the order as extracted against S.No. 11 in the above table. 5. Now by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 258 ii) Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another Vs. MST Katiji & Others 1987 (28) ELT 185 (S.C.) iii) Standard Treads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin 1996 (83) ELT 30 (Ker.) 7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel, carefully considered the material facts and the judgments referred to supra but, we are not convinced as to the explanation or arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the reasons detailed below:- i) It is an admitted position that the appellant did not challenge the OIA of the Ld. Commissioner dated 27.08.2013 and as pleaded by the ld. Counsel, it was interested only in seeking immunity/amnesty from interest and penalty for which reason it opted for declaration under VCES. As we find from the table above, this Bench p....