9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Asthana, Member (T)]. On consideration of Revenue stay application in this appeal on 15-3-2000, this Tribunal had issued a Misc. Order No. 140/2000, dated 15-3-2000 in which the ld. Commissioner had been directed to comply with the following requirements to complete the records before us :- (i) The original of the authorisation signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inconvenience which was also granted. Hence, the matter is now being considered today. 3. Vide their compliance report dated 25-5-2000, the ld. DR has enclosed copies of communication dated 19-5-2000, received by him from the Commissionerate concerned, wherein the Joint Commissioner has reported that the original authorisation signed by the Commissioner in ink is now enclosed. Persual of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had demanded duty of Rs. 23,854/- to be paid. In this connection, we find that the order impugned had remanded the matter to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise for finalisation of the provisional assessment. Revenue being aggrived by this remand had come in appeal along with stay application. Now, Revenue submits that provisional assessment has been finalised by the Suprintendent of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time having been granted to Revenue. 5. Therefore, in view of these non-compliance of the Misc. order of this Tribunal, as also in view of the fact that no original authorisation signed in ink prior to filing of the appeal exists on record and has not been supplied in terms of the said Misc. order, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeals as well as stay applications as not maintainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
