((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 44 OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 44 OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise ... Appellant Versus M/s. Press Metal Industries ... Respondent Mr. A.S. Rao with Y.R. Mishra and Ms. Nisha Valani and Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi for the Appellant. Mr. M.H. Patil for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . In the instant case, the Assessing Officer held in favour of the respondent, both on the count of limitation as also on merits. According to learned counsel for the Respondents, the Commissioner under Section 35(a)(2) directed filing of an appeal only on the ground of merits. The ground of limitation was not taken at all. From the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal only on merit and that was again in favour of Respondent. The Revenue being aggrieved by that order, preferred an appeal. The grounds of appeal also were in respect of merits and not on the ground of ((-2-)) limitation. The learned tribunal on hearing the appeal noted that the issue of limitation had not been raised and consequently dismissed the appeal. The tribunal noted as under : "...... However, in the appeals filed by the appellant Commissioner Smt. Prem V.P. Singh, there is no challenge to that portion of the impugned order, which holds the demand to be time barred. ......." . In the present appeal, the question of law as framed is as under : "1. Whether the Hon’ble CESTAT was correct in law in rejecting the Appeal of the Appellant merely on the basis that the Appellant has not challenged that portion of the Order before the Tribunal, which holds the demand to be time barred without considering the Appellant’s Appeal on merits and/or providing an opportunity to the Appellant to amend the Appeal or being heard on the ground in view of Rule 10 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982?" . We fail to understand as to how a party who has chosen not to seek any opportunity can move this ((-3-)) court on the ground that the tribunal suo motu ought to have granted time to amend the appeal. Apart from that the specific question on the issue of limitation was not at all raised. Consequently once that part of the order become final, the appeal as filed would have been of no consequences. In the light of the above, in our opinion, apart from the fact that the question as raised would not arise, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)