9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oM Nos. 50643, 50642 of 2018 in Ex. Appeal Nos. 50317, 50316 of 2017 - MO/50695-50696/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 4-10-2018 - Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Sh. B. K. Singh, Advocate for the appellant Sh. H. C. Saini, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present ROM applications are filed against the Final Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory was not chewing tobacco falling under CETH 24039910 (which is covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme). The appellant had contended that they were manufacturing preparation containing chewing tobacco which merits classification under CETH 24039920, to which the Compounded Levy Scheme is not applicable. iii) Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellant has claimed that first machine was inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire evidence on record and the grounds urged by the appellant in the appeal. 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 -176 ITR 535 SC. 7. Since the final order was pronounced and dictated in the presence of the ld. Advocate, we are of the view that RoM cannot be entertained, sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
