TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the Tribunal in Para 5 are factually incorrect. We have seen the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) and find that the said appeal is only in respect of main assessee, i.e., M/s. Narindra Hard Board Industries Pvt. Ltd. Neither the name of Shri N.N. Gupta is appearing as respondent in the said appeal nor is there any separate appeal filed by the Revenue against Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Pvt. Ltd. was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) and appeal of Shri N.N. Gupta, ex-Managing Director was allowed by setting aside imposition of penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs upon him. 2. It is seen that the order impugned in the present appeal was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in de novo proceedings when the matter was remanded to him. Inasmuch as in the remand proceedings, he confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-Ex, dated 17-2-2011, remanding both the appeals to Commissioner (Appeals). As such, we agree with the Revenue that the observations as contained in Para 4 in the present Final Order are factually incorrect. We note that vide the present order, the matter stands remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision and make it clear that he would not be bound by the observations made in Para 4 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dropping the demand before the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such the observations of the Tribunal in Para 5 are factually incorrect. We have seen the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) and find that the said appeal is only in respect of main assessee, i.e., M/s. Narindra Hard Board Industries Pvt. Ltd. Neither the name of Shri N.N. Gupta is appearing as respondent in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
