2018 (10) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty and yet dismissed it for reason for having confirmed the duty demand and penalty in the case of partnership firm in which the Appellant is a partner? Held that:- The impugned order dated 17th April, 2017 to the extent it disposes of the Appellant's appeal, is a non-speaking order. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and its partner i.e. Appellant herein. 2. This Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, is the order of the Tribunal is in breach of principle of natural justice inasmuch as it does not deal with Appellant's appeal in respect of penalty and yet dismissed it for reason for having confirmed the duty d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals). The impugned order of the Tribunal has disposed of both the Appeals by common order dated 17th April, 2017. The impugned order of the Tribunal has only referred to the facts and law, applicable in respect of the partnership-firm. This with regard to the demand of duty and imposition of penalty. No mention, much less consideration of the Appeal of the Appellant, is found in the impugn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X