THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21431 of 2002 Date: 23.7.2010 Between: M/S. Greesha Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Naresh Thaker Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, Addl. Advocate General The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21431 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order in Proceedings No.2002/DDB/Ex, dated 28.9.2002 issued by respondent No.1. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is unnecessary to refer in detail to the facts of the case, but it would suffice to note that the impugned order was passed as an interim measure, pending the final decision to be taken on the liability of the petitioner for payment of excise duty. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Prohibition and Excise (Distilleries),Hyderabad-II, respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise has passed a final order in Cr. No.B5/2567/2002/DDB/Ex, dated 28.10.2002. At the hearing, Sri Naresh Thaker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above mentioned final order passed by the Commissioner was stated to have been served on one of the petitioner’s employees, who had left the petitioner without informing about or handing over the order to the petitioner and therefore, no appeal could be filed within the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, it will pursue the said remedy. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents while submitting that the respondents will have no objection if the petitioner pursues its remedy in order to question the above mentioned final order passed by the Commissioner, has stated that the petitioner having not filed an appeal within the period of limitation, cannot be permitted to file such an appeal. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The order impugned in this writ petition was interim in nature. Evidently, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise has passed a final order on 28.10.2002. In the light of the plea that the employee who received a copy of the order on behalf of the petitioner has left the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner be permitted to pursue the remedy of appeal on merits instead of non-suiting it on the ground of delay. One other mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner is that the writ petition questioning the order directing payment of excise duty, as an interim measure, is pending as on today. Therefore, if the petitioner is barred from pursuing the remedy of appeal on the ground of limitation, it may be left with no remedy. In these circumstances, I feel it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file an appeal against order dated 28.10.2002. If such an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall receive and dispose of the same on merits, without raising any objection on the issue of limitation. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 23rd July, 2010 pnb