9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate, for the Respondent. [Oredr per : P.C. Chacko, Member (J)]. - These are applications filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem stating that there is a "mistake of fact apparent on record" in our Final Order Nos. 1073 & 1074/07 dated 30-8-2007=2007 (220) E.L.T. 66 (Tribunal) passed in Appeal Nos. E/1064 & 1085/04 of M/s. Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills (P) Ltd. and M/s. P.K.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading 56.06. In the remaining two show-cause notices, the yarn was proposed to be classified under SH 5205.11/19. In all cases, the said party contested the department's proposal and claimed classification under SH 5205.90. In respect of M/s. P.K.P.N. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., the applicant points out that, in four of the five show-cause notices issued to the party, the proposal was to classify th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we think, in the interest of the Revenue, we must point out the disappointing manner in which the Revenue's case was handled before this Bench. In this case, Smt. R. Bhagyadevi (SDR) presented the Revenue's case before the Bench when Appeal Nos. E/980/2001, E/1064/2004 and E/1085/2004 came up before this Bench for final hearing and all the three appeals were disposed of by Final Order Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fortunately, this did not happen. The department, then, presented another SDR before us to move applications for rectification of what is called "apparent mistake". These things indicate basic defects in the way the department's litigation is often being conducted before this Bench. It is for the authorities concerned to revamp the system and to ensure that the Revenue's case is effectively presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
