9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane II dated 28-10-05 which disposes of the applications/letters addressed to the Department by the assessee as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court in the Writ Petition No. 5767 of 2005. The Hon ble High Court of Mumbai gave certain direction in the aforesaid writ petition for disposal of the applications, which I extract as under:- At this stage, it will not be in the interest of either parties to entertain this petition. However, justice would be met by taking the pursis styled as Minutes of Order duly signed by the Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 4 along with Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Thane II and to dispose off petition keeping all rival contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal for quashing the Order and to issue necessary directions. Accordingly, while considering the merits of the appeal filed by the assessee and also keeping in view the rival submissions made by both parties including writ directions, the Tribunal has passed the impugned Order dated 14-6-2006. Now it is contended by the Department that though the impugned order passed by this Tribunal discussed about the issue of limitation but not discussed the appealability of the impugned order dated 28-10-2005 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane. In other words it means that the Tribunal has not discussed about the maintainability of the appeal filed by the assessee. Further to put forth that the Department has filed Cross Objection in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The written submissions filed by the Department on 3-1-2006 after conclusion of the hearing on 22-12-05 and ld. D.R has agreed that all arguments made and advanced have been taken into account. 6. After giving considerable thought to the submissions made in the present application and to two decisions i.e. Electro Mech. Engineering and Best Crompton Engg. Ltd. relied upon in support of the present application, I am of the view that they are distinguishable and is based upon totally different set of facts and are entirely inapplicable as those were cases where cross-objections, which are in the nature of a cross-appeal, of the Revenue, were not noticed while deciding the main appeal of the assessee. Furthermore there was no contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
