MARUTI TRAVEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The question involved in this appeal is :-

(2.) The appeal is required to be heard on the aforesaid substantial question of law. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the appeal, we have forthwith taken up the appeal for final disposal. The present appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 20th August, 2010 by which the demand for service tax and penalty was confirmed. An application was made by the appellant by invoking Rule 10 of the said Rules only for the purposes of adding grounds in the pending appeal and permitting the appellant to canvass the said grounds at the time of final hearing of the appeal. By the order impugned, the application has been rejected by the Tribunal [2016 (42) S.T.R. 316 (Tri.-Mum.)].

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the impugned order. His submission is that the application invoking Rule 10 of the said Rules could not have been rejected in the facts of the case only on the ground that it was belatedly made. Secondly, his submission is that the Appellate Tribunal could not have gone into the merits of the grounds sought to be added in appeal while deciding the application containing the limited prayer. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order.