9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arad Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ. (Board)]. - The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, for short, 'CESTAT' in so far as it confirms an issue relatable to a show cause notice dated 26-5-2009. Hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent, we s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated : Did the Tribunal act in accordance with law in applying the ratio of the judgment in Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, AP, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) without reference to the facts of that case qua the facts relevant to consider whether the proceedings relatable to the show cause notice dated 26-5-2009, in the case in hand, was barred by limitation? 3. It is poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. This obviously means that the findings rendered in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, as quoted above, is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the ratio of Nizam's case has been applied apparently without appreciating the relevance of that decision to the facts of the case in hand. Taking stock of the entire issues which were considered by the Tribunal through the impugned order, we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
