3.Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a matter, where the petitioner should avail appellate remedy available under the Central Excise Act by approaching the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai-34. However, I find that, even on the date of filing of the writ petition, if the petitioner had filed an appeal, it could have been rejected as time barred, as it was beyond condonable period. This writ petition has been pending since 2012, and though the respondent has been served and several counsels had appeared from time to time, no counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of case, I find that the petitioner can be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai-34, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such an appeal is filed, the Commissioner of Central Excise is required to entertain the appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law without rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. It is made clear that this order has been passed considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and not to be treated as a precedent. One more aspect, which weighed in the minds of the Court to grant the above liberty is on account of supplies effected to Government of India Enterprises and the petitioner is stated to have not received that portion of the invoice amount, which they had remitted to the Department by way of excise duty. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
