2009 (10) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. ORDER After hearing the parties, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to interfere in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction. 2. It was the case of the respondents that they imported the goods for the purpose of using them as inputs in their furnace for melting. The petitioners however found that what was imported was not scrap but mild non-alloy steel rods. Accordingly, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ical supervision of the officer of the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by this direction issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 526 (S.C.). In our opinion, the issue before the Supreme Court is not the issue before us and hence the rat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X