9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l there against – held that claim of the appellant as regards benefit of notification is a question of law and can be raised at any point of time – appellant submit that findings of the appellate authority that the notifications in question were not valid, are factually incorrect – appeal is allowed by way of remand - C/839/2003 and C/ROA/540/2007 - M/951/2007-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 31-8-2007 - Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, dated 20-2-07. The appellant's main grievance is that Commissioner (Appeals) has not allowed their plea to raise their claim for benefit of Notifications No. 93/90-C.E., dated 31-5-90; No. 118/89-Cus., dated 1-3-89; No. 169/89-Cus., dated 12-5-89; and No. 76/92-Cus., dated 1-3-92, on the ground that the same were not raised before the adjudicating authority or even in the first round of litigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the above findings of the appellate authority are factually incorrect. 3. In view of our foregoing observations and the statement made by Shri Maru, we set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the various notifications, under which the appellant had claimed the benefit. 4. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
