2023 (3) TMI 1294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms. Srishti Rawat, Ms. Ridhima Malhotra & Mr. Ankit Verma, Advs. Ms. Niharika Sharma, Adv. for designated authority ORDER CM APPL. 14198/2023 (for exemption) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 14199/2023 (for condonation of delay) 3. For the reasons ment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (by-products of Fluoroelastomers), was rejected. Consequently the said appeal was rejected as well. 6. The learned CESTAT had rejected the appeal solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. 7. It is the petitioner's case that it had filed an appeal, challenging the final finding of Designated Authority dated 12.12.2018 and a subsequent notification issued by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 27.11.2020. Therefore the appellant had sought to challenge the same as well. 11. The only question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned CESTAT was right in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Undisputedly, the appellant's appeal was delayed by a period of ninety-one days, as n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had explained that he was not aggrieved by levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on the product Fluoroelastomers; the appellant's limited grievance was with regard to two chemicals, which were sought to be included within the net of Anti- Dumping Duty. 15. In the given circumstances of the case, we consider it apposite that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant's appeal be restored before the ....