IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.43 of 2007
Commissioner of Central Excise, Revenue building, Birchand Patel
Path, Patna. ....Appellant /Appellant.
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Barauni, District-Begusarai, Bihar.
.....Respondents/Respondents.
For the Appellant : Mrs. Archana Meenakshee &
Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate
-----------
6 16.09.2010 Heard the parties.
On behalf of appellant strong objection has been
taken to the two words appearing at the end of the
impugned order. Those words are – “appeal rejected”.
For better appreciation of the matter, the short
order under challenge is extracted herein below:
“In view of the fact that the Revenue
has now been granted permission to pursue
their appeal before the Tribunal, we recall
our earlier order of closure of appeal and
restore the appeal to its original number.
Restoration of Appeal is accordingly
allowed. Appeal rejected”.
Mr. D.V. Pathy appearing on behalf of the
respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has fairly
accepted our view that the import of the order under
appeal was to restore the appeal of the revenue to its
original number and clearly restoration was allowed and
-2-
the appeal remains to be heard on merit.
In view of aforesaid fair stand, we find
substance in the submission advanced on behalf of
appellant that the words “appeal rejected” have occurred
at the end of the order under appeal on account of some
mistake. Hence, these two words are deleted from the
order under appeal dated 4.7.2006.
Thus, it stands clarified that the appeal in
question is still pending before the learned Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata as
Central Excise Appeal No. E-749/2002, to be decided on
merits.
This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. No costs.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. )
sk