9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Mr Parth Mullick Adv. For the Respondent : Mr D. D Sharma, Adv. for No. 2 ORDER S. J. Vazifdar, A.C.J. (Oral) This is an appeal against the orders of the CESTAT dated 15.02.2013 and an order dated 21.02.2014. The following questions of law have been raised in the appeal:- "i) Whether the Zinc-Dross/Zinc-Ash generated in the Factory has even been held to be not covered under Section - 2(f) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dross/Zinc-Ash confirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is Legal, Correct and Proper? For the purpose of this appeal, we, however, raise the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the appellant is bound by the concession recorded in the impugned order dated 15.02.2013 assuming that the concession was made." The main issue before the Tribunal was whether zinc dross is covered under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order, however, suggests that the counsel had consented to the matter being disposed of. The appellant, however, filed an application for recalling the order stating that the concessions recorded by the CESTAT are incorrect. The appellant relied upon the affidavit of the counsel who stated that no concession was made by him. The order records that the counsel only contended that there was no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 15.02.2013 and 21.02.2014. Assuming that the concession was made, it was made on a question of law which the party ought not to be bound by. Further there does not appear to be anything on record to indicate that the appellant had instructed the counsel to make the concession of law. The question of law, therefore, is answered in favour of the appellant. The impugned orders are set aside. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
