9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceed to adjudicate the show cause notice. The contention of the petitioner is quite correct that the show cause notice has become infructuous in view of the order passed by the Revisionary Authority. Petition allowed. - G. S. KULKARNI FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jas Sanghavi with Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b. PDS Legal. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Mr. Ram Ochani. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying the following substantive reliefs:- (a) that this Hon ble Court be pleas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order dated 20 August 2010 the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the petitioner s appeal and held that the petitioner was entitled to the rebate claims. The Commissioner of Central Excise, being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT ). By an order dated 29 August 2011 the CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise as not maintainable in terms of the first proviso of Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act. Being aggrieved by such order, the Commissioner of Central Excise filed a revision application before the Revisionary Authority. Pending the adjudication of the revision application, on 20 Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r be granted. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents-revenue although opposed the petition, would not dispute the factual matrix that the orders passed by the Revisionary Authority confirming the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), had attained finality. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner that the show cause notice was itself in the nature of a protective show cause notice and more particularly, considering the grounds as set out in the show cause notice in paragraphs 7 and 8. Certainly there was no cause for the department to proceed to adjudicate the show cause notice. The contention of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
