9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CESTAT dated 3 December 2009 is flawed since the order relied on has been recalled. The proceedings are remanded back to the CESTAT in view of the inadvertent error which has cropped up in the impugned judgment and order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Civil Appeal Nos................ of 2019 (Diary No 10950/2017) - - - Dated:- 1-8-2019 - MR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND MS INDIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of ₹ 15,00,000 under Rule 173Q. The following appeals were filed before the CESTAT: ( i) Appeal No. E/901/2008 filed by the Revenue; and ( ii) Appeal No.E/926/2008 filed by the Assessee. On 3 December 2009, only the appeal of the assessee was listed for hearing. The CESTAT allowed the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the fact that the order dated 3 December 2009 had already been recalled on 12 June 2012. In paragraph 6 of its impugned judgment, the CESTAT has extracted the relevant part of its earlier order dated 3 December 2009. In paragraph 7, the Tribunal observed that, in its earlier order, it had come to the conclusion that the adjudicatory authority having held that the ex-factory price is genuine, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
