TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI AND HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Appearance: AMAL PARESH DAVE for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR PARESH M DAVE for the PETITIONER(s) No. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this application, the applicant seeks stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 1st October 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the applicant, invited the attention of the court to the show cause notice dated 2nd March 1994 issued by the Collector, Central Excise and Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter to the original authority to re-determine the issue after hearing the respondents. 2.1 It was pointed out that the applicant, thereafter, moved an application for restoration of the appeal and recalling of the order dated 8th July, 2004 passed by the Tribunal by inter alia submitting that the departmental appeal was otherwise not maintainable/sustainable on account of the department having failed to file two or more appeals in case of two clubbed parties viz. M/s. Jolly Enterprises and M/s. Kinitronics, and in support thereof referred to various decisions. However, by an order dated 25th November, 2004, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration application on the ground that this was only a case of remand and the contents of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Tribunal, it was submitted that such findings are perverse to the record of the case. The attention of the court was drawn to the form of application under section 35E (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise before the Tribunal, to submit that it is clear that only M/s. Jolly Electrical Industries was impleaded as a respondent and the Tribunal had also issued notice of hearing to one party only. It was submitted that therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that in view of the fact that in the cause title there was reference to M/s. Jolly Electrical Industries and others, all the parties impleaded in the show cause notice are also parties in the appeal, is perverse to the record of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
