Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Limited vs Cce, Meerut-I on 14 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III ST/STAY/480 & 519 OF 2009-SM IN & SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 471 & 510 OF 2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 209/210-CE/MRT-I/2008 dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-I] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Limited, Appellant Vs. CCE, Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the appellants; Shri R.K. Saini, D.R. for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), Date of hearing/decision: 14th May, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
Learned Advocate submits that the impugned order relaltes to the remission application. He fairly submits that in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Supercoats Industries vs. CCE, reported in 2005 (183) ELT 255 (Tri.-Mumbai) appellants want to withdraw both the appeals. In view of that both the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Learned Advocate requests that appellants may be given liberty to file appeal before the proper forum. I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal decided that the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case relating to remission of duty. As such appellants are at liberty to file appeal before the proper forum. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK