9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. By this COD application, the Commissioner is seeking condonation of delay of 15 days on the ground that the matter was under review before the Apex Court reported in News Paper on 13-2-2000 and hence the delay is required to be condoned in the light of the judgments cited in the application. 2. Ld. DR, Shri S. Kannan seeks for adjournment in the matter on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d identical application and had not condoned the delay as in the case of C.C., Chennai v. Moon Impex decided on 31-5-2000 in Appeal C/98/2000 [2001 (136) E.L.T. 475 (Tribunal)]. He submits that this application is required to be rejected in the light of the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in U.O.I. v. Tata Yodogawa Limited (supra) and Tribunal decision in the noted cited case. 4. On careful consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this ground having been held to be not a sufficient ground, the number of days of delay is immaterial in this application, therefore applying the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in Tata Yodogawa Ltd (supra) and the cited Tribunal decision in C.C.E. v. Moon Impex, the COD application is rejected and as a consequence, the stay application and the appeal are rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
