TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 18th May, 2002 passed by the CEGAT. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Paresh M. Dave appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the said order passed by the CEGAT is unjust, improper and illegal because while passing the impugned order the CEGAT had ignored its view expressed in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Government Standing Counsel, Shri D.N. Patel has appeared for the respondent authorities. Looking to the fact that the earlier view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner has been now confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing an appeal filed against the said order, he had to reluctantly agree to the fact that the impugned order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cables Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner. 6. In view of the above referred undisputed facts, we quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals (Surat) can operate. 7. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. 8. [Per : K.M. Mehta, J.]. - For the reasons given in the judgment and order dated 27-12-2002 passed in Sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
