9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original refusing to grant refund arising out of the order passed by the CESTAT. 2. Heard Mr. K. Vijaya Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar Routhu, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. As against 3 Orders-in-Original, passed during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arantee for half of the amount. But since the order of the Supreme Court was an interim arrangement, the CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by the petitioner. The order dated 30-12-2015 at least as on date has attained finality, since no appeal filed by the petitioner has so far been numbered and put up even for admission. 5. On the basis of the decision of the CESTAT dated 30-12-2015, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT dated 30-12-2015. 8. The contention of the Learned Standing Counsel is that the department filed an application for review and that the same was dismissed only on 20-10-2016 and that therefore within the period of limitation prescribed, the department has come up with an appeal before this Court. 9. But the cause of action for the department to file an appeal arose out of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The department which chose to go into slumber from 30-12-2015 did not even wake up after the order dismissing the application for modifying the final order, passed by the CESTAT on 20-10-2016. In other words, the department has chosen to file an appeal, if what is stated across the Bar is correct, only after the order impugned in the present writ petition. Therefore, the finality has attache ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
