9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. 2. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Revenue questioning the order of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench, in allowing the appeal filed by -the assessee by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 183 E.L.T. 351. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant, viz., the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was taken up for hearing and hence, certain vital factors were not brought to the notice of this Court. According to Mr. Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the assessee is entitled to pay excise duty on monthly basis, which factor was not brought before this Court. Secondly, for payment of such excise duty, a notice dated 29-6-2005 was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel would also submit that in any case for the belated payment, the Bombay High Court has observed penalty for ₹ 5,000/- only. 4. We have considered the above submission and heard Mr. T. Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent has not controverted the above submission by filing a counter-affidavit. 5. The order which is sought to be reviewed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice and therefore, our order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and requires review. 6. In that view of the matter, we allow the review application and the order dated 28-10-2011 made in C.M.A. No. 1324 of 2011 is reviewed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for the above reason and the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. No cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
