2016 (2) TMI 1379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For Respondents: Ramesh Chaudhary, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal and Payal Dayal, Advs. ORDER 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Leave granted. 2. The Union of India (Appellant herein) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19-2-2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 29 of 2013 arising out of W.P. No. 458 of 2012. The Division Bench has made a stray observation relatin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has relied upon law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453 : 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) as well as in the case of Asstt. C.C.E. & Anr. v. Kashyap Engg. & Metallurgical (P) Ltd. (2002) 10 SCC 443 : 2002 (142) E.L.T. 518 (S.C.) to support her submission that the High Court while d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under appeal has to be set aside. We order accordingly. As already observed and as submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent, since the High Court has not considered the merits of the appeal preferred before the Division Bench, we remand the matter to the Division Bench for re-hearing the appeal on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order or in the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X