9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n moved seeking a writ to quash and set aside order dated 22nd June, 2004 (Annexure-F) made by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2. Heard Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate for the petitioner. Though the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22nd June, 2004 (Annexure-F) only the advocate, during course of hearing, has made an oral prayer se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout considering reply respondent No.1 disallowed the MODVAT credit. The said Order-in-Original came to be confirmed by respondent No. 2 - Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before CESTAT. Though the learned advocate for the petitioner has made various submissions on merits of the controversy it is not necessary for the Court to render any opinion on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case records, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) requiring interference. As such, the appeal is rejected." 6. Thus, it is apparent that the Tribunal has made a short shrift of its duty. In a similar matter in case of Nirman Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T., Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2004, decided on 10th January 2005, this Court has stated thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered in case of Mercury Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2002] 257 ITR 297 and Rameshchandra M. Luthra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2002] 257 ITR 460. The tribunal has passed the order on 29-08-2003 and yet seems to be blissfully unaware of the legal position." The order of the Tribunal, when read as a whole, must reflect the aforesaid position an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was a non-speaking order but the Tribunal has, unfortunately, failed to appreciate the same. As a natural corollary and consequence order dated 22nd June, 2004 (Annexure-F) can not be permitted to survive and is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The appeal is restored to the file of CESTAT and CESTAT shall deal with the contentions raised by both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
