2016 (5) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed order, it is clear that the first respondent had passed the order without applying his mind and erroneously held that as though the petitioner had admitted before the Inspecting Officer. When the petitioner had raised objections in the reply, the first respondent should not have passed such an order. Therefore, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner that the first respondent had passed the impugned order stating that they have admitted the reversal of ITC before the Inspecting Officer. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had raised objections with regard to the ITC reversal and the first respondent had erroneously held as though the petitioner had admitted the same before the Insp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .03.2015 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 7. With these observations, both the Writ Petitions are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X