9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner 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 from December, 2012 to January, 2013, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 petitioner sought refund. But the Adjudicating Authority refused the refund on the ground that the order of CESTAT could be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 order of CESTAT dated 30-12-2015. An application for modification of a final order made by the department and which was dismissed on 20-10-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 attached to the order of the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner cannot be overcome by this post facto remedial measure. 13. Hence, the writ petition de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
