2020 (2) TMI 445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax
HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON'BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri VM Doiphode, Advocate for the appellant Shri Dharmednra Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: C J MATHEW These applications, under section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Finance Act, 1994 seek, rectification of mistake claimed to be apparent in order no. A/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f earlier decision in 3i Infotech Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [final order no. A/94391/6/STB dated 9th December 2016] and in Milind Kukarni v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I [2016 (44) STR 71 (Tri-Mumbai)], did not render a finding flowing these decisions. 3. Learned Counsel for applicant informs that the original authority has, without taking cognizance of the pendency .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication by the original authority is limited to four of the disputes whereas all the five disputes were referred back to the original authority for disposal in accordance with the direction therein. 7. Any decision on our part on the correctness of the de novo order of the original authority or any direction to handle it any other manner would circumvent the appellate hierarchy and predispose the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X