9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now been dismissed. As the legal issue involved in the case has already been decided in favour of the assessee, we do not find any reason to go into the issue as to whether the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal was competent in view of alleged irregularity in the approval granted by the Committee of Commissioners - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. 35 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 4-10-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL MR. DARSHAN SINGH, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate Rajesh Bindal J. The revenue is in appeal before this court raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned without proper application of mind by the Commissioners ? (viii) Whether the CESTAT was correct in not considering the ratio of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CCE, Kanpur vs Ufan Chemicals 2013 (290) ElT 217 (All.) ? (ix) Whether the CESTAT's final order dated 5.11.2013 is correct and legally justified in dismissing the revenue appeal during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 7829/2004) and (SLP No. 22645/2004) filed by the Deptt. before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India containing similar issue ? Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax v. L.R. Sharma, 2014 (35) S.T.R. 3 (Del.) and Commissioner of Service Tax v. Japan Ai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 7829 of 2004 was pending at that time before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue in 'M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd.'s 1 s t case (supra) was dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2015 in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 2015 (319) E.L.T. 549 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as 'Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.'s 2nd case), hence, even on merits, there is no substance in the case set up by the revenue. Even if the matter is remanded back, it will be an exercise in futile. The shortage of inputs, as found in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.'s 2 nd case (supra) was 0.24%, whereas in the case of the respondent, it was merely .0085 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
