Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Makjai Laboratories

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal13 February 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. ST/205/09 Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Revenue's appeal is rejected because the Tribunal had already allowed, on merits, the assessee's cross-appeal against the same Order-in-Appeal in a companion matter, so nothing survives in the Revenue's appeal; no independent legal principle is laid down beyond this disposal by reference.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II

APPEAL NO. ST/205/09 Mum

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/118-119/2009 dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.

For approval and signature:

Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II : Appellant

Versus

Makjai Laboratories

Respondent

Appearance

Shri B.S. Meena, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) for appellant Adjournment request For Respondent

CORAM:

Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 13.02.2015 Date of Decision : 13.02.2015

ORDER NO.

Per : M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/118-119/2009 dated 09.06.2009.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue is in appeal on the ground that the penalty has not been imposed on limitation angle by first appellate authority.

3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent and the respondent is seeking adjournment vide letter dated 07.02.2015.

4. After hearing learned D.R., we find that there is no necessity for adjourning the matter as learned D.R. fairly submit that an appeal bearing No.ST/192/2009-Mum against the same impugned order has filed by assessee, has been allowed on merits by the Bench vide Order No.A/394/10/CSTB/C-II dated 29.11.2010. We perused the said order and find that this Bench has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the same Order-in-Appeal. Since the appeal has been disposed of by this Bench, nothing survives in the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated in open Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk ??

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free