TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, one would have expected the department to challenge the order made in W.P.No.30771 of 2015 dated 15.03.2016. To ascertain as to whether the department would be seriously prejudiced over the exclusion of the Chemical Examiner's report in the matter of adjudication by the appellate authority, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated that the impugned order in original dated 01.09.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate, Chennai, could still be sustained, without relying on the Chemical Examiner's report. Such being the position, we are of the view that the appellant/petitioner has not made out a case for interference. Statute provides for an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemical Examiner, whose report has been relied on in the order dated 01.09.2015. 3. Before the writ Court, submission has been made that the respondent ought to have given an opportunity to cross examine the Chemical Examiner, who had given the report stating that the subject product is not fertilizer. Reliance has been made to the decision reported in 2013 (295) ELT 195 (Mad.). According to the appellant, denying the opportunity of cross examination, is violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Before the writ Court, responding to the above, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the Chemical Examiner's report was taken into consideration only at the instance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended inter alia that the writ Court ought to have setaside the order in original dated 01.09.2015, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions, for the reason that the main grievance of the appellant/petitioner was that without providing an opportunity to cross examine the Chemical Examiner, whose report has been relied on, an adverse order dated 01.09.2015, has been passed. However, it could be seen from the impugned order in the Writ Appeal that while directing the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal, as per the statute, the learned Judge has observed that the appellate authority would entertain the appeal without insisting the question of limitation, as writ petition has been filed before this Court on 20.09.2015, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have been filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Commissioner of Central Excise , or, as the case may be, the other party preferring the appeal. 9. In as much as the petitioner had approached this Court on 20.09.2015, the writ court has granted a concession to the appellant/petitioner to prefer the statutory appeal and further directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal, without insisting on the question of limitation. Thus, perusal of the order impugned before us shows that the writ Court had not only eschewed the Chemical examiner's report from the consideration of the appellate authority, but also granted time for filing the statutory appeal. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
