9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue. Besides it also disposed of 7 miscellaneous applications. Out of 7 miscellaneous applications, 2 miscellaneous applications sought implementation of an order dated 8th October, 2009. Thus, in the aggregate, there were 41 appeals / applications disposed by the common impugned order all originating / emanating from a common order dated 18th December, 2006 passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication). 3. The appellant urges the following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in remanding the proceedings to the Adjudicating Authority, after keeping the appeals pending almost for 11 (eleven) years before it on the sole ground that it had remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmon order dated 18th December, 2006 of the Adjudicating Authority. The above two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal on 8th October, 2009. This by setting aside the common impugned order dated 18th December, 2006 to the extent it related to the two of them and restored it to the Commissioner (Adjudication) for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the Commissioner (Adjudication) had not complied with the orders dated 8th October, 2009 by adjudicating the notices afresh, the two assessees had filed applications seeking implementation of the order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the Tribunal. These two applications were heard by the Tribunal along with 33 appeals (including that of the appellant) and Revenue's appeals in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This delay was only in view of the appeals awaiting its normal turn for consideration. It is not the case of the appellant before us that consideration of their appeal was deliberately delayed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the grievance of delay in disposing of the appeals by the Tribunal has no merits and is not accepted. 8. It was next submitted that in the present facts, there was no need for the Tribunal to remand the proceedings for re-adjudication. We find that the very order dated 18th December, 2006, which was challenged before the Tribunal, was considered by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal. The coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Shri. Sanand Textile Industries Ltd. (supra) on consideration of the very order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
