2019 (1) TMI 1187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s submitted that aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.02.2015 and also aggrieved by the subsequent communication dated 12.04.2016 of the lower adjudicating authority, the Appellant had filed the writ petition bearing number 18828 and 18829/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 11.09.2018 directed the appellant to approach the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Appellant had filed the Writ petition in June, 2016, immediately after the receipt of the communication dated 12.04.2016 from the lower adjudicating authority. The time spent before the Hon'ble High Court would necessarily have to be excluded in light of the provisions of The Limitation Act." 2.1 When the matter came up for hearing,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received from CBEC (TRU), New Delhi regarding legality of benefit under notification no.46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 to CTH 4809 in F.No.341/30/2012-TRU dated 22.12.2015. 7 01.06.2016 The Appellant filed writ petition No.W.P.No.18828 of 2016 challenging the Order-in-Appeal No.212-215/2015 dated 27.02.2015, confirming the Order-in-Original No.3/2014 dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group 2) was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 8 01.06.2016 Appellant also filed Writ petition No.W.P.No.18829 of 2016 challenging the communication dated 12.04.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group 2), was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 9 11.09.2018 Order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....puty Commissioner and the clarification received from Board was conveyed to the appellant against which only they had gone to the High Court. Hence the appeal against the subsequent decision conveyed by Deputy Commissioner will lie to Commissioner (Appeals) and not before CESTAT. 4.1 Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, we find that the Ld. A.R is correct in his assertions. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.02.2015 had disposed of the appeal of appellant by directing the lower authority, as pointed out by Ld. A.R, to seek suitable clarification from the Board. That was done, albeit after nine months from the said order, on 26.11.2015. The clarification from the Board was issued in F.No.341/30/2012-TRU on 22.12.2015. The....