New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 462 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (7) TMI 462 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 615 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Rectification of mistake - Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Notification No.24/2005-CE(NT), dt.13.05.2005 - Validity of nomination of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise Vadodara - Held that:- order dated 30.10.2006 issued by CBEC, Ministry of Finance is not found enclosed with the ROM application filed and was also not produced during the course of hearing when the order [2015 (2) TMI 1006 - CESTAT AHMEDAB .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sis of cases decided by coordinate benches indicated in order dated 24.10.2014, passed by this Bench. Any contrary decision now brought on record was not relied upon before the Bench while deciding the main appeal and not even mentioned in the ROM application. - As the ground raised now were not existing/raised at the time of deciding the main appeal, therefore, it can not be said that there was any mistake apparent from the face of records - Rectification denied. - Application No. E/ROM/10048/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Finance, Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara was nominated as the member of committee for the purpose of review of Orders-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Zone under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue furnished copy of the said office order dated 30.10.2006 today alongwith the covering letter dated 22.11.2012, written by of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Zone to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alf of the Respondent argued that the issues raised by the learned AR were not raised in the ROM application filed before the Tribunal and were also not argued at the time of hearing of the main appeal. Learned Advocate relied upon the case law of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited [2015 (318) ELT 614 (S.C.)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. ROM application has been filed by the Revenue on the ground that Chief Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version