9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal order No. A 964/2002-NB(SM), dated 9-8-2002. The final order ibid does not reflect consideration of the submissions made by the appellants' Counsel before the Bench at the hearing stage on 25-7-2002. It is stated that the Counsel had advanced certain arguments and cited certain decisions in support of the case on merits and that a synopsis of such arguments/citations had also been placed on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (AIR 2001 SC 2171). The learned Counsel also relies on the decision of this Tribunal (Two Member Bench) in West Coast Industrial Gases v. CCE [1998 (104) E.L.T. 478]. 3. The learned DR submits that the operative part of the final order indicates that the view contained in that part of the order was taken by the Bench after due considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That decision on a similar ROM application is to the effect that non-consideration of judicial precedent cited before the Tribunal will constitute an apparent error if the final order of the Tribunal does not disclose consideration of such judicial precedent. On a perusal of the aforesaid synopsis, I find that the case law cited therein was not examined by the Bench. Hence this is a case of non-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
