9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No - Final Order No. 1532/2006-SM(BR)(PB) and Stay Orde - Dated:- 19-10-2006 - [Order]. - This stay application is filed by the Revenue against order in appeal dated 19th June, 2006 that set aside the order in original dated 30th January, 2006. .The relevant fact that arise for consideration are respondent in this case filed an application for registration with the authorities on 28-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the application for issuance of Central Excise1 Registration Certificate. The adjudicating authority on his own vide order in original dated 30th June, 2006 again rejected the application for registration by a speaking order. The respondent preferred second appeal against the order in original dated 30th January, 2006 which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by setting aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has directed the lower authorities to grant the registration and not to pass any speaking order. 5.Since issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, I dismiss the application for stay of operation of the impugned order and take up the appeal for disposal. 6.Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. I find from records that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eproduced portion of the order in appeal that the learned Commissioner has very clearly held that the registration has been denied without any authority of law, therefore, said denial is not sustainable. The learned adjudicating authority has erred while passing the order in original dated 30th January 2006; as the department has not filed any appeal against the order dated 31-10-2005. If that be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. This law also has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur as reported at 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.). 9.Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, the appeal filed by the Revenue against order in appeal dated 15-6-06 is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
