2017 (8) TMI 1108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Amrinder Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : S.J. Vazifdar, C.J. (Oral)]. - CM-26975-CII-2016 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 121 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-26977-CII-2016 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gally justified in taking cognizance of said Chartered Engineer Certificate which was never placed before the Original adjudicating authority during adjudication proceedings?" 2. In our view, a substantial question of law does not arise in this appeal. It is purely a question of appreciation of facts. The issue is whether moulds for the manufacture of automobile parts remained with the respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... physically removed from the respondent's premises. The only question, therefore, is one of fact, namely whether the moulds were physically removed from the respondent's premises or not? 5. The Adjudicating Authority relied upon the invoices to hold that the moulds had not been removed. The invoices merely evidence a sale. They do not evidence the movement of the goods in respect whereof, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X