9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in these two appeals filed by the Revenue is whether M/s. Rajasthan Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. are a multi locational Composite Mill as per explanation given under Entry No. 101 of the Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98. 2. We heard Ms. Ananya Ray, ld. SDR for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the finding of the Commissioner that the lease agreement was sham cannot be sustained. Ld. Advocate further mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has followed this decision of the Tribunal for allowing the appeal filed by them; that filing the appeal against the Tribunal's decision is not sufficient ground to challenge the impugned order passed by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 has been set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 134-143/2001-A as reported in [2001 (131) E.L.T. 594 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents relying upon this decision of the Tribunal. In view of these fact, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such we reject both the appeals filed by the Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
