2011 (10) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant Shri Navneet Addl. Commr. (A.R) for respondent This is an appeal filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta against the Order-in-appeal No. 34/Mumbai-III/2010 dated 15/02/2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the CESTAT Order No.1124-25/WZB/2004 dated 25/08/2004, fine and penalty was reduced in the appeal filed by M/s. Ramnarain & Co. and Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta.  In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a separate appeal by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta is merely a technical violation. Since the appeal of the firm has been filed and admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals) there is no reason to reject the appeal of the appellant on ground of mere non-filing of separate appeal by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta. He submitted that at no point, this objection was raised by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits. 4. The Additional Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the revenue reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) and submitted that since the order-in-original was passed in pursuance of remand proceedings the appellant was well aware that the separate appeal is to be filed by them. 5. After hearing both sides. I find that appeal has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X