TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. 2. An appeal was pending before CESTAT which was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 16-9-2005. The petitioner applied for setting aside that order and restoration and re-hearing of that appeal. This prayer has been refused by the impugned order dated 2-2-2006. 3. The Tribunal says that on 9 dates which were fixed earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the petitioner to point out to us any substantial error in the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16-9-2005. It may be mentioned here that the judgment proceed on the basis that during an inspection of the factory of the petitioner loose papers showing clearance of goods were recovered from the pocket of the factory manager and the cashier. During verification of stock some shortage was found. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner's factory manager. 9. In our opinion nothing of substance has been shown by way of error in the order dated 16-9-2005 and the Tribunal is correct when it says that the counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any error in the order dated 16-9-2005. In the circumstances, it would be a gross abuse of the process of law and would set a bad precedent if restoration of this kind of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
