JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for granting in its favour the following reliefs:- “(i) Rejection Order (Annexure P/10) may be set aside and the Settlement Commission be directed to restore the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. (ii) The order of Commissioner (Appeals) (Annexure P/7) be held as null and void. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh be directed to restore the petitioner’s appeal. (iii) The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Shimla be restrained from resorting to coercive measures for recovery of the penalty or any other due connected with the case. (iv) That in the alternative order of the settlement commission relating to the first settlement application (Annexure P/6) may be set aside and the first settlement application may be restored and disposed as per law. (v) That in the alternative the petitioners be granted liberty to file appeal in the Tribunal by ordering that appeal be not barred by limitation prescribed under Section 32B(3) of Central Excise Act.” 2. The petitioner as portrayed by Annexure PA is a registered company. Annexure P comprises the resolution of the Board of Directors of the petitioner-company authorizing its director Mr. Naveen Agarwal to institute the instant petition before this Court. The certificate denoting the factum of Commencement of Business by the petitioner-company is appended with the writ petition as Annexure PB. A show cause notice comprised in Annexure P-1 was served upon the petitioner-company by the competent authority enjoining upon it, to explain as to why :- 1. the Cenvat Credit of Rs.15,83,372/- involved in the case should not be recovered from them under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 readwith Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Interest in terms of Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be recovered from them on account of delayed payment of cenvat credit/duty involved in the case. 3. Penal action under Rule 13 of the Cenvet Credit Rules 2002 read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act 1994 should not be taken against them for the contraventions of the Rules cited above.” 3. The petitioner-company filed a reply to the show cause notice served upon it, by the competent authority. 3. Penal action under Rule 13 of the Cenvet Credit Rules 2002 read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act 1994 should not be taken against them for the contraventions of the Rules cited above.” 3. The petitioner-company filed a reply to the show cause notice served upon it, by the competent authority. Vide Annexure P-2 the competent authority repudiated the reply furnished by the petitioner-company to the show-cause notice served upon it, hence confirmed the demands raised against the petitioner-company comprised in Annexure P-1. Subsequently on 27.2.2006 the petitioner filed an appeal therefrom before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh, for short “Commissioner (Appeals)”. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner-company filed an application (Annexure P-3) under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, for short “the Act”, before the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Principal Bench at New Delhi, for short “the Settlement Commission” for according to it immunity from payment of penalty, interest and prosecution. Vide Communication Annexure P-4, it was intimated to the petitioner-company that its settlement application filed before the Settlement Commission stands listed for hearing on 12.12.2006. An interim order was pronounced on 14.12.2006 by the Settlement Commission wherein a conclusion was formed by it, that though the entire liability fastened upon the petitioner-company in the show-cause notice (Annexure P-1) stood admitted by it, yet the material available before it divulging its liability towards illegal availment of Cenvat credit being higher than the one constituted in the show cause notice which stood confirmed in Annexure P-2, besides a disclosure emanating therefrom of the petitioner-company being in shortfall towards defrayment of custom duties, hence with the settlement application preferred before it, by the petitioner-company not encompassing the entire gamut of its liability towards the revenue qua the facets aforesaid constrained the Settlement Commission to direct the petitioner-company to furnish a revised application unfolding therein its total liability encompassing both the facets aforesaid. The petitioner-company despite having been afforded an opportunity to file a revised application before the Settlement Commission for its being facilitated to pass a settlement order yet omitted to, since 14.12.2006 when the interim order (Annexure P-5) was passed by the Settlement commission upto 23.3.2007 comply with it. Even though, on 23.3.2007 the petitioner-company had sought time uptill 15.4.2007 to comply with the interim order comprised in Annexure P-5, nonetheless it then too omitted to comply with it. Even though, on 23.3.2007 the petitioner-company had sought time uptill 15.4.2007 to comply with the interim order comprised in Annexure P-5, nonetheless it then too omitted to comply with it. Consequently, the Settlement Commission was constrained to pass a “rejection order” comprised in Annexure P-6. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner-company to file a fresh application before it making a full and true disclosure of its additional duty liability. On 30.4.2007, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal preferred before it by the petitioner-company against the order of the adjudicating authority whereby the latter under Annexure P-2 confirmed the demand raised under Annexure P-1 by the competent authority upon the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company vide Annexure P-8 reinstituted a settlement application under Section 32E of the Act, before the Settlement Commission, wherein it admitted its liability towards the revenue comprised in a sum of Rs.15,83,372/- on account of cenvat credit and in the sum of Rs. 2,69,094 on account of deficit defrayment of custom duty. However, under Annexure P-10, the Settlement Commission rejected the application filed by the petitioner-company. 4. 2,69,094 on account of deficit defrayment of custom duty. However, under Annexure P-10, the Settlement Commission rejected the application filed by the petitioner-company. 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner-company before the settlement Commission had contended before it that the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is nonest, which vice imbuing it stood spurred by its being rendered for want of jurisdiction in the Commissioner (Appeals) arising from the factum of the Settlement Commission while being seized of a settlement application preferred before it by the petitioner-company which stood subsequently rejected by it on 10.5.2007 especially when significantly with Section 31(c) of the Act, while defining “case” and the statutory signification thereof taking within its ambit the yet pending lis before the Settlement Commission inter-se the petitioner-company and the Revenue embedded in settlement application (Annexure P-3) also with the Settlement Commission falling within the ambit of “adjudicating authority” constituted in the definition of “case” existing in Section 31(c) of the Act, in addition with the provisions of Section 32I(2) of the Act which stand extracted hereinafter envisaging a mandate of the Settlement Commission when seized of a lis inter-se the petitioner-company and the revenue embedded in settlement application (Annexure P-3) being alone, subject to the provisions of sub Section (6) of Section 32F of the Act, till its acceptance or rejection by it, jurisdictionally competent to decide the “case” hence jurisdictionally barred the Commissioner (Appeals) to previous to the rejection of settlement application on 10.5.2007 by the Settlement Commission pronounce an order on the appeal preferred before it by the petitioner-company herein. Apart therefrom he contended qua the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) when as such standing ingrained with the vice of jurisdictional incompetence its necessitating its being quashed. The aforesaid contention addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company before the Settlement Commission stood discountenanced by the latter. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company contends before this Court that in the Settlement Commission having discountenanced the aforesaid submission addressed before it, had committed a grave legal misdemeanor which be undone by this Court. The aforesaid contention addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company before the Settlement Commission stood discountenanced by the latter. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company contends before this Court that in the Settlement Commission having discountenanced the aforesaid submission addressed before it, had committed a grave legal misdemeanor which be undone by this Court. “31(C) “Case” means any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of excise duty, pending before an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 32E is made: Provided that when any proceeding is referred back in any appeal or revision, as the case may be, by any court, Appellate Tribunal or any other authority, to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be then such proceeding shall not be deemed to be a proceeding pending within the meaning of this clause; 32I(2). Where an application made under Section 32E has been allowed to be proceeded with under Section 32F, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under Sub-Section [(5)] of Section 32F, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section [(4)] of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any Central Excise Officer, under this Act in relation to the case.” 5. The submission aforesaid addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company to constrain this Court to quash Annexure P-10 cannot bear any fruition inasmuch as even if vide Annexure P-6 the Settlement Commission rejected the settlement application of the petitioner-company comprised in Annexure P-3 subsequent to the passing of order dated 30.4.2007 by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an appeal preferred before it by the petitioner company against Annexure P-2, nonetheless the legal solemnity of the interim order passed by the Settlement Commission on 14.12.2006 directing the petitioner-company to furnish a revised application unfolding therein its total liability towards the revenue against cenvat credit as also against custom duty, is not to be slighted, moreso when there was slothful omission on the part of the petitioner-company to beget compliance therewith even upto 15.4.2007 whereupto it had obtained time from the Settlement Commission to comply with, hence constraining the Settlement Commission to ultimately reject its settlement application. Even therein it had reserved an opportunity in favour of the petitioner-company to file a fresh application making a full and true disclosure of its additional duty liability towards the revenue. Even though the aforesaid opportunity was availed by the petitioner-company yet when it stood availed belatedly, sequelly its imprompt availment by the petitioner-company for the reasons assigned hereinafter would not render the Commissioner (Appeals) to be disempowered to exercise jurisdiction thereupon nor render him to be jurisdictionally incompetent to pass it for hence disrobing it of its jurisdictional vigor nor would belittle the legal efficacy of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 30.4.2007. It appears that the petitioner-company had been indiligent to avail the mechanism of the settlement commission for settling its lis with the revenue. For reiteration, when the petitioner-company omitted to file before the settlement commission the enjoined revised application disclosing therein its full liability towards revenue on the excise as well as on the custom side, since 14.12.2006 up till 15.4.2007. In aftermath, when hence ex-facie perse by its overt proactive indiligence it rendered Annexure P-3 to be unrejuvenated as also rendered it to be not surviving arising from inaction on the part of the petitioner-company in begetting compliance with the interim order passed by the Settlement Commission. Naturally when the availment of the mechanism of settlement by the defaulter for settling its lis with the revenue through the auspices of the settlement commission is entirely dependent upon cooperation rendered to it by the petitioner-company which having remained un-rendered arising from the fact of its having not complied with the interim order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Settlement Commission up till 15.4.2007, hence sequelling the deadening of its lis with the revenue concerted to be settled through Annexure P-3, hence concomitantly an apt inference which is drawable therefrom is of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.4.2007 prior to the Settlement Commission rejecting subsequently on 10.5.2007 the settlement application Annexure P-3 preferred before it by the petitioner-company despite the existence of a bar constituted in Section 32I(2) of the Act against the Commissioner(Appeals) exercising jurisdiction thereupon during the pendency of Annexure P-3 before the Settlement Commission not wanting in jurisdictional sinew especially when the statutory bar embedded in Section 32I(2) of the Act is for the reasons aforestated rendered un-attractable. As a corollary the Commissioner (Appeals) was not divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the appeal preferred before it by the petitioner-company against Annexure P-2. Redoubled vigor to the inference aforesaid is garnered, for reiteration, by the factum of the petitioner-company having not complied up to 15.4.2007 with the interim order of the Settlement Commission which indolence is a palpable reflection of its proactive indiligence, with a concomitant effect of its lis with the revenue getting deadened or its being stripped of rejuvenation, sequelly hence with no “case” pending before the Settlement Commission for hence precluding the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass orders thereon rendered, the order passed by him on 30.4.2007 being construable to be not suffering from any jurisdictional frailty. 8. Tritely put the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-company would have gained momentum only when the lis inter-se the petitioner-company and the revenue had remained alive or surviving before the Settlement Commission, it looses its force when given the hereinabove discussion the lis inter-se the petitioner-company and the revenue remained not pending before it, arising from the factum of the petitioner-company by its proactive indiligence or indolence to beget compliance with the interim order made by the Settlement Commission rather rendered it to be deadened as well as un-rejuvenated. The gross passivity on the part of the petitioner-company to mete compliance with the interim order of the settlement commission rendered its lis with the revenue pending before the settlement Commission to be having no element of survival, besides it hence being construable to be “no case” pending before it as a corollary the Commissioner (Appeals) was not divested of jurisdiction to pass orders on an appeal preferred before it by the petitioner-company. 9. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the petitioner-company may avail of its statutory right, if any, to assail the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the competent statutory forum/authority. Even if the statutory remedy if any vesting in the petitioner-company to assail the order of 30.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) stands barred by time, yet the period of limitation spent by the petitioner-company by its bonafide preferring the instant petition before this Court shall in consonance with section 14 of the limitation Act stand excluded in computing the statutorily prescribed period of limitation for its availment by the petitioner-company. 10. 10. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.