2008 (9) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pearing for the petitioner in all the three matters has not remained present in any of the two calls. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad dated 30th May, 2007 in Application No. E/COD/56/07, E/S/55607, refusing to condone the delay of more than 800 days in preferring the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, the petitioner has challenged other two orders of the Tribunal passed in other two appeals. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is inter alia engaged in the manufacturing of clinker and cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner has ava....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mines following the binding precedent of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog (supra). The Commissioner disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 04.02.2005 reducing the penalty from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.10,000/-. Since the subject matter of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was already decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog (supra), filing of an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) would have been an empty formality and, therefore, showing due respect to the law of land, the petitioner did not file an appeal against the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The Honourable Supreme Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeal on the technical grounds of limitation had resulted in failure of justice inasmuch as by doing so the CESTAT has made the petitioner as victim of law on account of changing legal position. Technicalities of law cannot prevent any Court from doing substantial justice. It is further contended that there was sufficient cause and CESTAT ought to have condoned the delay. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venkataramana Chuduva & Muraura Merch, reported in (1986) 159 ITR 59, wherein the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal was upheld and the Tribunal condoned the ....