9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estions of law:- a. Whether the Tribunal is justified in remanding the case for denova adjudication, in as much as evidence are available to rebut the contention of party that the supply of yellow and green bars are always in the ratio of 5:1 and the said contentions of the assesses are thoroughly discussed in paragraph 25 of the order in original passed by the lower authority. b. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in complying with the rigorous of the Evidence Act before the proceedings rather than applying the concept of preponderance of probabilities as per law. c. Whether it was correct on the part of the Tribunal to reject the decision of the lower authority that the party could have produced & utilised calcined alumina in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would further contend that to produce the calcined alumina, the ratio of 5:1 (5 yellow bars and 1 green bar) is applied and various dealers had also spoken to that effect in their statement and therefore, the Tribunal had taken into consideration and rightly, remanded the matter. It is his further submission but for the entertainment of this appeal, the Original Authority would have passed orders on remand and the matter has been kept pending nearly for 11 years and prays for the dismissal of this appeal. 4. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed before it. 5. The Original Authority has assumed that prior to the year 1995, the respondent/assessee would have used al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent / assessee, but for the entertainment of this appeal, the Original Authority would have passed the order long back, after remand, but the fact remains that on account of the pendency of this matter for nearly 11 years, it could not be done so. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant / revenue are answered in negative. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the Final Order No.157/2005 dated 27.01.2005 passed by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Appeal No.E/960 of 1998 (arising out of Order in Original No.1/98 dated 29.01.1998) passed by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
