9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal has passed a detailed order and has already considered the effect of Larger Bench decision and inasmuch as, there is a subsequent judgement of the Hon’ble High Court – there was no justifiable reasons to recall the stay order and to vacate the stay – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/1508/2011 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2013 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the said order. As such, it becomes clear that even though the amount involved in one of the show cause notices was mentioned, the stay was for the entire demand confirmed by the Commissioner. 3. The applicant have filed a misc. application for clarification of the stay order inasmuch as Revenue is entertaining a view that the said stay granted only in respect of 14,84,88,928/- , the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order. The understanding of the Superintendent as reflected in the said letter is not appropriate and we do not agree with the same. Accordingly, we clarify that the said stay order is for the entire amount involved in the impugned order and allow the misc. application No.E/55523/2013. 5. Misc. application no.E/M/56475/2013 stands filed by the Revenue directing for withdrawal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1997 (91) ELT 540 (SC) and Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay reported in 1998 (103) ELT 606 (Tribunal), held that the Larger Bench s decision is not proper and has accordingly granted stay. Ld. Advocate submits that subsequent to the said order . Bombay High Court s decision in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (286) ELT 161(Bomba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
