9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench at Chennai, in E/534/2003 and when the appeal was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent/assessee and therefore the Tribunal thought it fit to remand the matter to the lower Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. In the light of the said development, the substantial question raised by the appellant/Revenue, is answered in the affirmative - appeal partly allowed - matter on remand. - C.M.A.(MD).No.981 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2016 - MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU For the Appellant : Mr.R.Nandakumar for Mr.R.Aravindan For the respondent : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar JUDGMENT M.SATHY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en classified under Heading No.48.22 (SH No.4822.00) of the CETA Schedule, which has apparently been accepted by the Revenue and allowed the Appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee. 4. The Revenue has also filed an application in E/ROM/Application No.36/2005, stating that as against the order passed in Order in Appeal No.148/2003, further appeal has been filed. However, review application was dismissed on 27.09.2005. Challenging the Order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal. 5. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that order in Appeal No.148/2003, dated 29.04.2003 had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in Order-in-Appeal No.148/2003. The Revenue also filed review application pointing out that the appeal was filed against the order in A.No.148/2003. However, the Review application came to be dismissed on 27.09.2005. The fact remains as against the order in Appeal No.148/2003(MDU), dated 29.04.2003, the appellant/Revenue filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench at Chennai, in E/534/2003 and when the appeal was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent/assessee and therefore the Tribunal thought it fit to remand the matter to the lower Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. In the light of the said development, the substantial question raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
