9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandok , Adv. For Respondent: Mr Sukhdev Sharma, Adv. JUDGEMENT Per: Ajay Kumar Mittal: 1. Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of notices/letters dated 30.11.2011 and 23.2.2012, Annexures P.4 and P.5 respectively issued by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner-firm has been directed to make payment of the differential Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") before this Court for framing question of law arising out of order dated 9.10.2000 vide CCES No.73 of 2001 which was allowed and a question of law was framed vide order dated 29.7.2002, Annexure P.2 . Thus, a statement of the case was called from the Tribunal which was registered as GCR No.2 of 2003. The GCR was decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o far. According to the learned counsel, though the reference which was filed by the department was decided in their favour but unless an order in consonance with the opinion of this Court in GCR No.2 of 2003 dated 26.8.2011 was passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 35K (1) of the Act, no recovery could have been effected from the petitioner-firm. 4. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment." 7. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision clearly shows that the Tribunal after the decision by the High Court or the Supreme Court is required to pass order to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment. Unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
