9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. When the impugned order is already set aside by the Tribunal; no application for rectification of the mistake apparent on record has been filed by the Department and as the order of the Tribunal is not negated by any higher judicial forum, we find that the impugned order is non est. Moreover, the principal on which the appeal was made, i.e., the applicability of proviso to Section 11 to the successor, before 10/09/2004 was also decided in favour of the appellants and the same was upheld by the High Court - As the impugned order has already been set aside, the present appeal gets consequentially merged with the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. The present appeal is to be held to have been allowed earlier. We find that no inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders 106-107/08 dated 29/02/2008. The appellants preferred an appeal before CESTAT, who vide Final Order 917-918/2008 dated 25/07/2008 set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issue to be decided again by following principals of natural justice. 2. In de novo order no. 41/2009 dated 31/07/2009, Commissioner appeals has confirmed a demand. The appellants contention was that, the company was a proprietorship firm and as the proprietor Shri Prakash Gandhi, expired on 15/09/2003 the proceeding against the company cannot be continued against the new proprietor i.e., Shri Dhiren Gandhi, son of late Shri Prakash Gandhi. Shri Dhiren Gandhi preferred an appeal in this Tribunal. Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1542/2010 dated 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is non est. Moreover, the principal on which the appeal was made, i.e., the applicability of proviso to Section 11 to the successor, before 10/09/2004 was also decided in favour of the appellants and the same was upheld by the High Court. As the impugned order has already been set aside, the present appeal gets consequentially merged with the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal is to be held to have been allowed earlier. We find that no intervention is required by this Bench. 4. Thus, we find that there is nothing left in the Appeal No. E/969/2009 to be decided and accordingly the same is disposed of. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 27/11/2019) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
