TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed at Tribunal is not a pure question of law but a question of law as well as fact it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the Tribunal - appeal dismissed. - E/1599 & 160/11 - A/87047-87048/16/SMB- - Dated:- 13-4-2016 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for appellant Shri. NN Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s.PP Patel Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the order of the original adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) who uphold the order-in-original and rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal. 2. Nobody appeared for the appellants, however they filed a written submission. 3. In the written submission, the appellants have argued that the closure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r made before the lower authorities, before the order-in-appeal was issued. He argued that the period of closure of more than one month can be considered together has been raised for the first time in the Tribunal. He argued that this is not a question of law but also a question of fact. He argued that the Tribunal in the case of Control touch Electronics (Poona) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue as to whether the product is marketable or not was not even raised by the respondent in reply to the show cause notice nor was it argued before the Commissioner and therefore, on that ground the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal. 5.1 I find that the issue raised at Tribunal is not a pure question of law but a question of law as well as fact it cannot be permitted to be raised for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
