9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal by allowing the appeal of the respondent has set aside the demand of duty. Held that- the appeal filed under Section-35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before this Court is not maintainable. - 34 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2010 - K.L. Manjuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned persons i.e. Managing Director and the Factory Manager of the unit is not legal and brushing aside as suspicion, though well founded cannot take place of solid evidences. (b) Whether, mere retraction of their own earlier statements of the concerned M.D. and Factory Manager of the unit after the case was registered and the demand was confirmed, is legal enough and has evidentiary value so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to him, if the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal. The matter has to be taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the appeal under Section-35G before this Court is not maintainable. To substantiate his arguments, he has taken us through the show cause notice issued by the revenue dated 25-2-2002 which is produced as Annexure-C to the appeal. On perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
