9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olation of the order passed by the Supreme Court? - Held that:- Additional Commissioner on the basis of the application filed by the appellant under Section 35 (c) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking rectification of the order by the Tribunal and the Tribunal, though dismissed the application, but made certain observations and on the basis of the said observations, the matter was taken in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by this Court in Central Excise Appeal No.22/2011. The following was the order passed in the said appeal: - This appeal under Section 35 (G) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the first respondent/Tribunal. The appellant has raised a ground that the order passed by the Tribunal is in violation of the order passed by the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to examine the composition of the products cleared by them during the relevant period and quantify the products having therapeutic value or any ingredients in the formulation covered under schedule 'H' as per the enclosed chart for their liability. In view of this subsequent development, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the effect of the impugned order of the Tribunal has wiped of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the matter, was as to whether the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal could have pass an order in violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court. Thus, this substantial question of law was involved in the matter and taking note of the subsequent development, which took place after passing of the order by the Tribunal that the Additional Commissioner on the basis of the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd issued the letter dated 04.02.2013, if the appeal has been disposed of in terms of the said letter, this review petition is wholly unwarranted and is clear abuse of the process of law. In the circumstances, while dismissing this review petition, we impose cost of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) on the petitioner. The petition is dismissed with cost, as aforesaid. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
