9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This order will dispose of two appeals; A. No. E/2365/2000-C filed against the order dated 28-4-2000 and A. No. E/2366/2000-C filed against the order dated 20-4-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both these appeals have been filed by the Revenue being dissatisfied with those orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) for re-examining the matter. 3. In reply the learned counsel, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, has not disputed that in the impugned order dated 28-4-2000 the Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any finding about the availability of benefit of Notification No. 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 to the respondents in respect of the goods in question. He had only followed his earlier order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded any findings about the classification of the goods in question which according to the ! Revenue were covered by Tariff Heading No. 39.15 nor regarding the applicability or non-applicability of the Notification No. 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994, the benefit of which had been sought by the respondents. He has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner simply by following his earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 during the period in question (1-3-1994 to 15-3-1995) had also been recorded by him. Therefore, we find that the impugned order is quite creptive, non-speaking, and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 6. In view of the discussion made above, in both these appeals, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
