9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 6395 of 2011 passing order on 05.08.2015 reading as under:- "We find that the matters are covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Ginni international Ltd. [20101 15 SCC 227]. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed." 2. Revenue's submission is that its appeal was dismissed following the decision in Ginni International (supra) and while deciding the case of Ginni International, the decision in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2007 (211) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) was followed. Therefore Tribunal has to consider present appeal of Revenue in the light of the decision in Virlon Textile Mill's case (supra) since the law l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or non-speaking one. Whenever this Court has felt inclined to apply its mind to the merits of the order put in issue before it though it may be inclined to affirm the same, it is customary with this Court to grant leave to appeal and thereafter dismiss the appeal itself (and not merely the petition for special leave) though at times the orders granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal are contained in the a same order and at times the orders are quite br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order was under scrutiny before it for consideration on merits and Hon'ble Court, on consideration, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the word "accordingly" used in that order is with reference to the matters covered against Revenue. Hence, Revenue cannot plead today that the merits of the order passed by the Tribunal has not received scrutiny of the apex court. Accordingly reconsideration of Revenue's appeal at this stage is unwarranted and uncalled for. 8. In view of the legal propositions law laid down in Kunhayammed's case as stated above, the order of the Tribunal having merged in the dismissal order of the apex court, this Bench has no jurisdiction to touch the merits of the case again and there is no further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
