M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.EA-70841/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condones a delay of 748 days in filing the appeal, on the ground that the appeal was filed within the period prescribed by Rule 6A of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, read with the parent Order-in-Appeal being filed in time, with the delay condoned for the reasons explained in the order. Where both parties agree that an earlier decision of the Tribunal in respect of the same Order-in-Appeal has already remanded the matter, and the Tribunal's own earlier decision in the same matter directs remand, the present appeal is remanded to the original authority on the same basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.47-48/Kol-V/2011 dated 02.05.2011 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Mukherjee, Commercial Executive for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.Nata, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 21.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 21.09.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75506/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 748 days in filing the technical appeal arising out of the same Order-in-Appeal No. 47-48/KOL-V/11 dt.02.05.2011 which was filed in time i.e. on 30.06.2011. The present Appeal has been filed 19.07.2013 in accordance with Rule 6A of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
3. In view of the reasons explained the delay is condoned.
4. Both sides agree that this Tribunal has already remanded the matter arising out of the same Order-in-Appeal disposing the Appeal against Order No.04/AC/CE/GRD/KOL-V/2009-10 dated 25.08.2009, and requested that the present appeal may also be remanded.
5. In view of our earlier decision bearing No. S-615/A-253/Kol/2013 dated 07.08.2013, the Appeal is also remanded to the Original Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. S.P. disposed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.EA-70841/13
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free