9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The present application is for rectification of mistake in the final order No.A/86109/17/EB dated 28/02/2017 on the following grounds: "Appeal No.E/4172/2005 filed by the applicants came up for hearing before Hon'ble CESTAT on20/09/2016. The Hon'ble CESTAT heard the both the sides and reserved the order. The Hon'ble CESTAT pronounced the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served the order in appeal No.E/222/2006 filed by the department. The Hon'ble CESTAT pronounced the order on 28/02/2017 allowing the Appeal No.E/222/2006 of the department. Final Order No.A/86109/17/EB dated 28/02/2017 passed by the CESTAT is enclosed as Annexure-2. 12. In view of the above events, the entire demand upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) along with interest and reduced penalty has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 5 of the Final order dated 28/02/2017 is incorrect in upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, since the demand has already been set aside vide CESTAT Final Order No.A/85072/17/EB dated 2/1/2017 on merits. The applicants submit that if the Hon'ble CESTAT would have adjourned this matter till the outcome of the order of the CESTAT in Appeal No.E/4172/2005, the penalty would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72/2005 filed by the applicant. Appeal was very much argued by the Counsel for the respondent and no evidence/submission was produced in support of their claim that their appeal is pending and heard by this Tribunal. It appears that the Ld. Counsel has misguided the applicant for her gross negligency. It clearly appears that the Counsel was not even aware of the other appeals filed by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n set aside by this Tribunal vide order dated 02/01/2007 in Appeal No.E/4172/2005. Therefore, there was no question of imposition of any penalty. This is a strong reason for rectification of the order dated 28/02/2017 in Appeal No.E/222/2006. Accordingly, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the applicant. Consequently the appeal No.E/222/2006 is allowed. The ROM application is allowed in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
