9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (AR) For the Respondent : Mr Ainekeya Patil, Adv. ORDER Per: P K Jain: Brief facts of the case are that two show cause notices, one dated 28.5.1992 and another dated 29.9.1993, were issued to the respondent. The same were adjudicated by a common order-in-original No. 41-42/1997 dated 16.10.1997, wherein the Commissioner dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed two appeals against the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was dropped on limitation. 2. The miscellaneous application has been filed to decide the COD and ROM applications before deciding the main appeal. The Revenue filed rectification of mistake application along with condonation of delay application in respect of the second order. However, for some reasons the same could not be listed and decided by this Tribunal. In the meantime, after wai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal's decision in the case of CC, Ahmedabad vs. Palak Laser Video Club reported in 2006 (199) ELT 860 (Tri.-Mumbai). We are under almost the similar circumstances. The Tribunal held that the second order has to be considered as non est. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention. His main contention is that during the hearing of the second order, he had pointed out ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd gives an impression that the Tribunal thought that the two cases though are similar but are different. It is well settled legal position if a matter is decided by any adjudicating authority or any appellate authority, the said authority cannot decide it again. The second judgment or order has to be ignored or is non est in the eyes of law. We accordingly hold so. The COD, ROM and miscellaneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
