9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal and the Tribunal having observed that the Order in Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is irrelevant and incompetent proceedings, I accept the discussions and the judgement rendered in CESTAT Final Order No.20258/20157 dt 5.2.2015 and thereby set aside the Order in Appeal 2/2014 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21345/2014 - A/30250/2017 - Dated:- 21-2-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for stay. The stay application was dismissed on 14.06.2010. 4. On dismissal of stay application, the refund sanctioning authority pursuant to the Order in Appeal dt. 20.5.2009, instead of sanctioning refund, again adjudicated the eligibility of refund and vide order-in-original No. 255/2013, dt. 31.10.2013, passed a denovo order sanctioning part of the refund and rejecting an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal and disposed vide Final Order No. 20258/2015, dt 5.2.2015. The Tribunal therein held that as the matter was already heard and decided by the CESTAT, the impugned order (4/2014) was a result of culmination of series of irrelevant and incompetent proceedings. There upon, the Tribunal set aside the order in original No 255/2013 (denovo order) as well as Order in Appeal No.4/2014. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue preferred another appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order. Since primary order dated 31.10.2013 is inherently and patently incompetent, the impugned order is equally an exercise in futility. At any rate, all these proceedings which arise out of the order dated 30.10.2013 of the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, the appellate order dated 8.1.2014 and the impugned order of the appellate Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
