HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the above writ petition came up for admission the petitioner was directed to serve notice on the learned Central Government Standing Counsel and after notice Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.

(2.) THE short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are set out below:-

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner that has been raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner earlier filed an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) vide Appeal No. E/2746/03 and the matter was remanded back with a direction to hear the appeal on time bar and decide the appeal in accordance with law. But the respondent by an order dated 09. 08. 2004 passed in Order No. 47 of 2004 rejected the appeal as time barred. Again the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT in E. 3224/04-Mum challenging the order dated 09. 08. 2004 and the CESTAT by an order dated 26. 08. 2005 held that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was within time and directed the respondent to decide the appeal on merits. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the above said appeal, the petitioner filed a stay petition seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 09. 08. 2004 passed by the respondent and to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty under Section 35 F of the Act and the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal passed the following order, viz. ,