9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. Revenue came in Appeal against the order dated 29-12-2006 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeal), Kolkata with the ground that the de novo Order-in-Appeal passed by the Lower Appellate Authority contradicting his earlier decision was liable to be interfered and for the admitted facts on record as to confession of the offence, the Respondent wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Committee. The appeal sought by Revenue in this case was without an opinion but merely by an authorization which is not inconformity with Section 35B(2) of the Act. 2. The ld. JDR appearing for Revenue submitted that the ld. Appellate Authority below only changed its previous opinion and passed the order unjustly when the approval slips were the sole basis for the proceeding. There was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order exhibited that the appeal was disposed on 29-12-2006 whereas the order impugned was signed by the ld. Appellate Authority on 5-1-2007. This caused anxiety to ascertain whether there was any order in the records of the ld. Appellate Authority below on 29-12-2006 which was subjected to appeal by Revenue in the present Appeal. The appeal record was therefore called for examination and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so Justice must be seemed to have been rendered. The Lower Appellate Authority s record does not reveal whether the order impugned was dictated or pronounced on 29-12-2006. This enables to conclude that the order was only passed on 5-1-2007 and that was non est on 20-12-2006. 6. On the aforesaid premises, the order appealed being non est, no decision on merits is called for and Revenue Appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
