TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take has to be restored to its original place and deserves to be decided on merit - appeal restored - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/23085-23086, 23088, 23091 & 23093/2014-DB - Misc. Order Nos. 20350-20354/2016, dated 22-7-2016 - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) and Ashok K. Arya, Member (T) Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR, for the Appellant. Shri Keshavraj Nair, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok K. Arya, Member (T)]. - The applicant/appellant has filed a miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 20106-20158/2016, dated 21-1-2016 in Appeal No. ST/35/2007-DB filed by the Department. The said appeal was dismissed summari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of records, we find that the amount involved in all these appeals is less than ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and needs to be summarily dismissed as per the new litigation policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, C.B.E. C. Circular No. F. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dated 17-12-2015 as reported by a letter of C.B.E. C. dated 1-1-2016. 3. Accordingly all the appeals are dismissed summarily (emphasis supplied) leaving the larger issue open to be decided in an appropriate manner. 5. After issue of this order, Revenue filed application from Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin saying that issue in the subject appeal involves issue of classification and same is of recurring nature. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (320) E.L.T. 122 (Bom.). Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Pankaj Jaju (supra), has held that the Tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to withdraw the order, if ends of justice require such course of action. 6.1 We also refer to Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of A.S.C.U. Ltd. : 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) wherein in Para 7 of the judgment it quotes its own two judgments viz., Commissioner v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. : (1997) (8) SCC 502 (SC) and T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v. Volkar Brother : (1971) 2 SCC 526 (SC) and observes that mistake apparent on the face of the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
