Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Meerut-I vs M/S Indo German Brakes Linings (P) Ltd on 1 November, 2011

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.

Date of Hearing :  1.11.2011

Excise Appeal No. 2738 of 2005

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 47-CE/Appl/Noida/2005 dated 20.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Noida)

Coram:
Honble Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)

1.	Whether Press Reporter 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 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?	
4.	Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?	

CCE, Meerut-I                                                                         Appellant


Vs.

M/s Indo German Brakes Linings (P) Ltd.                               Respondent

Appearance:

Appeared for Appellant     : 	   Shri S.R. Meena, DR	                                                                      
Appeared for Respondent  :      Shri Rajesh Gupta, C.A.
                                           
 						                                
  CORAM:	 Honble Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President 
		 Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
                   

    Order No.dated.

Per S.S. Kang :

	Heard both sides.

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for factual verification.

3. The respondent submitted that in pursuance to the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter was again adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. Against that adjudication order, the present respondent filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed the appeal. Against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue filed appeal which is pending in the Tribunal.

4. In these circumstances as in pursuance to the present impugned order adjudication proceeding has already completed, therefore the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (S.S. Kang) Vice President (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM