9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 03.12.2015 passed by this Bench, therefore, cannot be allowed as this court has no power to review its own Order. Reliance placed in the case of Alfred Berg & Co.(I) (P) Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2009 (6) TMI 673 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Held that: - the facts of the case not applicable to the case as in that case no summon was served upon the petitioner whereas in the present case the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring on behalf of the Appellant argued that Order dated 03.12.2015 was passed by this bench without hearing the Appellant. He relied upon the case law of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Alfred Berg Co.(I) (P) Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2011 (273) E.L.T. 373 (Mad.)] and argued that the applications filed by his client may be allowed. 3. Sri S.N.Mitra, AC(AR) appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (I) (P) Ltd. vs. Cestat, Chennai (supra) that no summon was served upon the petitioner. Whereas in the present case the notice issued to the Appellant has not been returned undelivered. Sri K.K. Sanyal, Consultant of the Appellant also argued during the hearing that address shown by the Appellant in the Appeal, is not proper. Therefore, they could not get the intimation of personal hearing. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
