9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved and thereby encash the remand order by misinterpreting such order to its benefit. Clearly, the same amounts to abuse and misuse of the process of law and hence, in our view, the Original Authority has grossly erred in taking advantage of the remand order by misinterpreting and thereby travelling beyond the scope of the second Appeal. In that view of the matter, to the extent of the relief granted in the Original Authority order dated 22.12.2008, the impugned order certainly calls for/deserves interference and hence, to that extent, the impugned Order stands set aside forth-with. Conclusion - The scope of the impugned order therefore cannot go beyond the grievance of the Appellant. It is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears, not satisfied with the above order, the assessee appears to have approached this Bench by filing another appeal. The Bench after hearing both the parties, vide Final Order No. 41741-41742/2017 dated 16.08.2017, has set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority and remanded the case back to the file of Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration and as a sequel to the above remand order, Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority has proceeded to examine not only the issue in appeal which was sent back by the Tribunal, but also the original issues which were settled on account of the Revenue having accepted the order of Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority s order [OIO No. 10/2008 dated 22.12.2008] by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any Appeal cannot go beyond the Grounds of Appeal urged. Hence, by not filing any Appeal, department cannot feel aggrieved and thereby encash the remand order by misinterpreting such order to its benefit. Clearly, the same amounts to abuse and misuse of the process of law and hence, in our view, the Original Authority has grossly erred in taking advantage of the remand order by misinterpreting and thereby travelling beyond the scope of the second Appeal. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that to the extent of the relief granted in the Original Authority order dated 22.12.2008, the impugned order certainly calls for/deserves interference and hence, to that extent, the impugned Order stands set aside forth-with. 5. From the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
