9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent : Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- Having heard both the sides, it is found that the short point for decision in the present appeal is the correctness of the impugned order dated 13/05/2015 remanding the appellant's appeal to Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter in terms of final order dated 21/10/2014 of CESTAT. 2. Bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pass order afresh within three months. Upon such remand direction, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order dated 13/5/2015. He observed that the Department forwarded the adjudication file. It contained only show cause notice, appellant's reply alongwith order-in-original. The Department did not furnish specific documents directed by the CESTAT to be examined or furnished any comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the available evidences as directed by the CESTAT. His remand order is totally contrary to the direction of the Tribunal. Apart from his lack of power for such remand, the order itself is not legally sustainable as the directions of the Tribunal has not been complied with. The learned AR fairly admits that the Commissioner (Appeals) could have given a finding on merits based on available eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the scope of remand directions given by the Tribunal. The impugned order expressed total helplessness in performing a judicial work. The Jurisdictional Authorities have contributed to such unfortunate situation. Without further dwelling upon the impropriety or the sustainability of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) it is necessary that the finding on the merit has to be arrived at in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
