2016 (6) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ma, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Delay of 59 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for brevity "the 1994 Act") against the order dated 18.3.2015 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terest and penalties. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2013, the respondent filed an appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.3.2015 (Annexure P-1) allowed the appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the adjudicating authority payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard learned c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 25,000/- on the adjudicating authority who passed the order in question. The relevant findings read thus:- "It is admittedly unusual to copiously and verbatim quote paragraphs from the adjudication order. However, it was felt necessary in the present case to do so to drive home the point that the adjudicating authority has been highly and conspicuously nonspeaking, non-reasoned, arbitrary and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X