9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s order is silent in this regard and therefore, the Commissioner has not complied with the directions contained in the remand order of this Tribunal. We further notice that the findings in the impugned orders are a verbatim reproduction of the findings in the order dated 29/12/2009 which was set aside. This again shows complete non-application of mind and mechanical passing of the order. In view of the above factual position, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the adjudicating authority once again to pass a fresh order in terms of the directions given in the remand order dated 11/10/2011 - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse. - Appeal Nos.E/951 & 952/2012 & E/86434/2013 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r fresh consideration with the following directions: 5. We find that the specific contention raised by the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice dt. 25.6.2009 in respect of the exports of goods under bond which were lying in stock on 15.8.2008 when the applicants started availing benefit of notification No. 30/2004 and during the month of October only in certain goods on payment of duty. The contentions were not considered while passing the impugned order and the same requires verification also. Therefore, we find that it is a fit case for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside and remanded for denovo adjudication to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh affording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply. However in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has not considered these submissions, and therefore, the order passes is not sustainable in law and therefore, the matter needs to go back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the submissions made by the appellant and also to pass a fresh order in accordance with the directions of this Tribunal in the order dated 11/10/2011. 3.2 The learned counsel further points out that the findings of the adjudicating authority in paras 20.1 to 25.6 are a verbatim reproduction of the findings in para 20.1 to 20.4 (c) of the order dated 19/12/2009 which was set aside by the Tribunal. Thus, it can be seen that there has been no application of mind on the part of the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the remand order of this Tribunal. We further notice that the findings in the impugned orders are a verbatim reproduction of the findings in the order dated 29/12/2009 which was set aside. This again shows complete non-application of mind and mechanical passing of the order. In view of the above factual position, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the adjudicating authority once again to pass a fresh order in terms of the directions given in the remand order dated 11/10/2011. Needless to say the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard while passing the denovo order. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Operative pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
