9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, in violation of the conditions of the exemption notification - interest and penalty imposed on the 2nd respondent - respondent no. 2 on the role of the Managing Director in the misuse of DEEC Scheme committed by the firm was well established by the Department. HELD THAT:- The Tribunal, by the impugned order, had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed. - C.M.A.No.3427 of 2008 And M.P.No.1 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Honourable Ms.Justice R.N. Manjula For the Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondents : No Appearance for R1 R2 R3- Tribunal JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal, filed by the appellant-Department, is directed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal correct in setting aside the interest and penalty imposed on the 2nd respondent when he had admittedly on the role of the Managing Director in the misuse of DEEC Scheme committed by the firm was well established by the Department? 3. We have heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, had remanded the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had set aside the confiscation of the goods and interest and penalty imposed on the Managing Director, which is incorrect. 7. Since the Tribunal thought fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer, it has to necessarily interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. In the light of the above, we find that there is no question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
