9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This RoM application has been filed against the Tribunal s Final Order Nos. 593 594/2007 dated 21-5-2007 [2007 (217) E.L.T. 392 (T)]. 2. The brief facts are as follows :- The Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate appealed to this Bench against the Order-in-Original No. 11/2004-Cus. dated 31-3-2004 and the Order-in-O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srinivas were figuring as respondents. There is no mention of the other two respondents viz. (i) Shri Srikant Dev, Inspector and (ii) Shri N. Mohd. Sadiq, Inspector. It has been urged that the issue involved is common and the Reviewing Authority had given a Revision Order and filing of appeal is a matter of procedure and it would be a correct position of law that in all cases, one single appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for RoM should include names of other respondents is not sustainable. 4. On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that the Revenue has filed two appeals against two Order-in-Original. However, in the Final Order, the Order-in-Original No. 12/2004-Cus. dated 31-3-2004 has not been mentioned. Therefore, this mistake can be rectified by incorporating the same in the first paragraph as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal by anybody even though the notices were issued to them. However, the Revenue s appeal was dismissed in view of the legal provisions under Section 155 which is applicable to the above mentioned officers also. The following paragraph may be added after the last paragraph in the Final Order. Shri Srikant Dev and Shri N. Mohd. Sadiq are also respondents in the present appeals. Though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
