9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing. Only the cumulative effect of such consideration will have to be mentioned in the order as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Karam Thapar [1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]. The RoM is nothing by an attempt that review of the final order which is not permissible in law. ROM application dismissed. - Ex. RoM No. 50552 - 50553 of 2018 in Ex. Appeal Nos. 52282 & 52312 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an important document. He has referred to the letter dated 27.08.2013 which is a communication within the department in which the Department has taken the view that the goods manufactured by the respondent would merit classification under CETH 2933.69, as contended by the respondent. The lower authority had decided the issue in favour of the respondent after considering the above document. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctioning of a co-ordinate Bench of the same Court, much less sit in judgment as an appellate Court over its decision. That which could not be done directly could also not be done indirectly. Otherwise, a party aggrieved by an order passed by one Bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another Bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94.00. The submission of the ld. Advocate is that the above letter indicates that the department is of the view that the items manufactured by the respondent-assessee have been ordered for classification under CETH 2933.69, as contented by the respondent. 7. A careful perusal of the above letter, which is part of the appeal record, does not convey, to our mind, the conclusion of the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
