1997 (4) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. When the case was called out today the Bench enquired whether notice had been served on Shri Vinod Kumar Didwania the second respondent or not. Learned Dapartmental Representative Shri G.D. Sharma showed to us Fax message dated 23-4-1997 addressed to his office by the Bombay Custom House to the effect that the notice for hearing on today were displayed on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urn the case for hearing at a later date. 3. Shri Chidambaram here makes a valid grievance and that is on number of occasions he had come to Delhi to argue in this case but there never was a fruitful hearing. Although, the Bench sympathised with him, it was felt that the arguments of the Revenue were valid. It was, therefore, decided that the hearing of this case be adjourned to 23rd July, 1997. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ambaram citing the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Telco Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 583 (Tribunal) argue that the Doctrine of Merger applied here and the impugned order cannot be challenged by the department where it has already been dealt with by the Tribuanl in the cited order. He also cited the Supreme Court order in the case of S.S. Rathore v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X