Full Judgment
2. The Counsel for the respondent wants an adjournment of this matter, which 1 am not inclined to grant, inasmuch as the respondent had received notice of this application sufficiently in advance.
3. The main ground raised in this application is that the impugned order was initially accepted by the Commissioncrate on 24-7-2003, but the appeal has been occasioned by a subsequent circular of the Board.
Circular dated 26-9- 2003 of the Board was issued to inform the field formations that the department had filed review petitions against the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments dated 27-2-2002 and 26-2-2002 [2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and T.V.S.Srichakra Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. A279]. The relevance of these judgments of the Apex Court is that these judgments were relied on by the lower appellate authority to grant abatement of duty from assessable value to the assessee in respect of the excisable goods in question.
4. Ld. DR, who reiterates the ground of this application, submits that the delay in filing of the appeal has been occasioned by the belated decision of the Board to apply to the Supreme Court for review of the above judgments. He submits that the appellant-Commissioner was not aware of the Board's circular for quite some time. I have heard the Counsel for the respondents as well. He has not contested the fact that the Board's circular for filing review petitions in the Supreme Court was issued subsequent to expiry of the period of limitation in this case. I am satisfied with the ground stated in this application.
Accordingly, the delay of the appeal is condoned. The appeal will arise in due course of time for hearing.