9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv., Neelam Chand, Adv., Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv., Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For The Respondent (s) : Ms. L. Maithili, Adv., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. And Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Adv. ORDER Admit. These appeals arise from a judgment and order of the CESTAT dated 14 July 2016 in Appeal Nos.E/901/2008 and E/906 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand was incorrect and liable to be set aside. In January 2010, the Revenue moved an application for recall of the order of the CESTAT dated 3 December 2009. On 12 June 2012, the CESTAT recalled its order dated 3 December 2009 and listed both the appeals for hearing. By the impugned judgment and order dated 14 July 2016, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, by relying upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings back to the CESTAT in view of the inadvertent error which has cropped up in the impugned judgment and order. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the CESTAT dated 14 July 2016. Appeal Nos E/901/2008 and E/926/2008 are accordingly restored to the file of the CESTAT for disposal afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. We clarify that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
