9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karan Chawla, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr J K Mittal with Mr Rajveer Singh and Ms Sheetal, Adv. ORDER 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 18th September 2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT') dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein i.e. the Commissioner of Service Tax ('CST') on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can examine and go into the question of application of mind on merits by the Committee of Chief Commissioners or Commissioners? (2) In case the aforesaid question is answered in affirmative, Le. against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, then, whether the decision of the Committee of Chief Commissioners or Commissioners should be treated as null and vo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion no.2 does not arise for consideration. In any event, in our discussion hereinabove, we have clearly indicated that the act of appending of signatures by the members of the Committee of Commissioners, would suffice, as long as, the record placed before them, contains the necessary material and the reasons for approving the action to institute the appeal. 4. In view of the above judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the correctness of the impugned order of the CESTAT dismissing the CST's appeal at the threshold after holding that the decision of the COCC was vitiated for non-application of mind. It is evident from the order of the Full Bench that the CESTAT could not have gone into the merits of the decision. Consequently, in the present appeal the Court cannot permit the Respondent to challenge the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
