Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2007 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (7) TMI 584 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWhether statutory powers of Commissioner to file appeal against an order in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 can be denied for the reason that Commissioner had once accepted the order in appeal? Whether acceptance of order-in-appeal by the Commissioner becomes final and binding on the department and whether the Commissioner can re-examine the order and file appeal under section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 before the CESTAT? Held that:- Here in this case, it has been found that the Commissioner has accepted the order of Commissioner of Appeals on June 10, 2005. Thereupon, the matter has not been precipitated further. That shows a quietus has been given to the issue by accepting the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Thereupon, as found from the reasons stated by the appellant herein in their application for condoning the delay, the matter has been once again reconsidered as per the letter of the Chief Commissioner dated April 17, 2006 on the sole ground that the connected issue is pending before the Supreme Court and in the High Court of Bombay. The time-limit fixed for filing an appeal is in order to give a finality to the proceedings. If an appeal has not been filed within the time-limit stipulated in the appeal provision, a legal right accrues to the other side on the ground that because of non-filing of the appeal, the order passed in favour of other side would have been accepted by the department and reached its finality. Such accrued legal right cannot be simply brushed aside by filing an application after one year to condone the delay on the ground that similar issue is stated to be pending before the Supreme Court. It is also well-settled and established legal principle of law that in fiscal statute, every assessment year or every clearance is a unit by itself and a separate cause of action. For each cause of action, the parties can seek remedy notwithstanding the decisions rendered on an identical set of facts in the earlier years. Hence, we are of the view that an ultimate decision rendered by the CESTAT cannot be complained of by the appellant, though certain argument has been made about the observation contained in the body of the order as unwarranted. We hereby make it clear that the observation made in the body of the order of the CESTAT need not be taken as a finding rendered on the basis of an adjudicated order. Appeal dismissed.
|