9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: Miscellaneous Application filed by Mrs. Asha Agarwal is pleading for taking them as intervener in the matter. Stay petitions are filed by the other two appellants against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has rejected their appeal as not maintainable. 2. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that vide order in original, the Deputy Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y petitions are basically infructuous. However, we note that Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 31.3.2010 has rejected the present appeal on the ground of not maintainability by observing that vide order in appeal dated 31.3.2010 he has already set aside the impugned order while allowing the appeal of M/s Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and as such, inasmuch as the impugned order is already set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t impugned order has already been set aside and as such the present appeal was not maintainable. The present two appellants cannot be held to be at fault on the ground of disposal of appeal of the M/s Ravindra & Co. by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said course of action adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) is admittedly and definitely disadvantageous to the present appellants. As such without g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Miscellaneous Application filed by Asha Agarwal is given liberty to air her grievances before Commissioner (Appeals) by way of filing application before Commissioner (Appeals). Appellate authority shall also examine the facts while deciding the miscellaneous application that whether any separate appeal was filed against the order in appeal by Asha Agarwal. The appeal was required to be filed by he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
