9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nthan, CA For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The applicant has moved miscellaneous applications for Rectification of Mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.06.2017 whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant by way of remand. The appellant has further submitted that in para 8.4 of the impugned order, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld as follows: "11. We are of the view that similar dispensation can be given to the dispute covered in the present case which is for the earlier period. For redetermination of the eligibility of credit of inputs service, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority with a similar direction as in Final Order dated 13.1.2010. However, we make it clear that the adjudicating authority is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument. Further the Commissioner allowed a part of the cenvat credit and the remaining part of the cenvat credit was denied on the basis of nexus which is beyond the allegation in the show-cause notice. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned consultant appearing for the applicant submitted that the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. She further submitted that in the garb of this application appellant wants to review the whole case on merit which is beyond the scope of Rectification of Mistake application. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
