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. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. )