9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. The respondent took an objection to the appeal filed by the Revenue. For that respondent filed a Misc. application to say that appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. As per the application filed by the respondent, the contention of the applicant is that the authorization given by the Committee of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Commissioners have signed on different dates, but the same cannot be the reason for treating the appeal as non-maintainable as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CST v. L.R. Sharma [2014 (45) GST 113/44 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) = 2014 (35) S.T.R. 3 (Del.)] and as held by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron P. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case as in those cases the authorization was granted on two dates but in this case, no date has been mentioned in the authorization. Therefore, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Paswara Papers Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed that part of the authorization is yet to be dated therefore such authorization is not being acceptable to law. Admittedly, the authorizat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
