TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, purported to be a question of law has been raised by the appellant-Commissioner in the subject Reference Application :- whether the Hon ble CEGAT, EB is correct in dismissing an Appeal considering the same as infructuous without going into the merits of the case. 2. Before dealing with the question, it is appropriate to set out the relevant facts as found by the Tribunal. For this purpose, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority. Simultaneously, Revenue also filed an appeal by way of application under Section 35E against the order of the Assistant Collector dropping the demand of duty. 1.4 The lower appellate authority set aside the impugned order of penalty against the respondents in their appeal. He, however, did not take notice of the Revenue s appeal against the same order passed by the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide his Order-in-Appeal No. 85-RA-Cal. II/96, dated 10-7-1996. 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the Tribunal found that in view of the ground taken by the Commissioner in its Appeal before the Tribunal against setting aside of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- by the lower appellate authority has become infructuous inasmuch as the Revenue s Appeal has since been decided by the Commissioner Appeal vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17-6-1997. In view of the dismissal of the Revenue s Appeal against the order dated 10-7-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no cause whatsoever survived. 6. At this stage, ld. Advocate, Shri M.L. Chatterjee also came and presented the Tribunal s Order dated 17-6-1997 referred to (supra), adding that there is no substance in the Reference Application because of this order. I agree with h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
