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 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Grip Tight Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Nagpur on 24 January, 2011

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT  NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/302/10      IN APPEAL NO. E/243/10  Mum

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SR/291/NGP/2009  dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur)

For approval and signature:

Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 
Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see	   	:     No
	the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2.	Whether it should 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            :     Seen
	of the Order?

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental      :    Yes
	authorities?


Grip Tight Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant



Versus





CCE Nagpur

Respondent

Appearance Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for appellant Shri Manish Mohan, SDR For Respondent CORAM:

Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 24.01.11 Date of Decision : 24.01.11 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal along with a stay application against the impugned order wherein their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order.

2. After hearing both the sides at length, we find that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount, we take up the appeal for final disposal.

3. The learned Advocate submitted that, for the subsequent period on the same issue, in the appellants own case, the same lower appellate authority has allowed their appeal on merits and prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside.

4. We have gone through the order passed by the lower appellate authority for the subsequent period where we find on the same issue the lower appellate authority has decided the matter in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the lower appellate authority to decide the issue on merit without asking any pre-deposit from the appellant. With this direction, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated in open Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2