2008 (8) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Arguing on the ROM application, the learned SDR Shri Sameer Chitkara submits that Revenue's appeal stand rejected, by the Tribunal vide Order No. A/2929/WZB/AHD/2007, dt. 3-12-07, by upholding the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) that the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) has been wrongly extended to the respondent by treating the entire realization as 'cum-duty-price'. For the above proposition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eme Court judgment in case of M/s. Amrit Agro Industries Ltd., learned advocate submits that the said judgment was available when the Tribunal passed an order in the present case and attention of the Bench was never brought to such decision by learned SDR representing Revenue. As such, failure on the part of learned SDR to refer to the said judgment cannot be held to be a mistake on the part of Tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. was affirmed by them in case of CCE, Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2002 (3) SCC 547] and has further observed in Para 14 that the Tribunal has rightly remanded the case to re-determine the duty payable, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(ii). In terms of the said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, no mistake can be found in the T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X