TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilderth For the Respondent No.1: Mr Roshan Lal Goel For the Respondents 2 & 3: Mr Mukesh Anand with Mr R. C. S. Bhadoria, Mr Shailesh Tiwari and Mr Sumit Batra CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed Hon'ble Mr Justice V.K. Jain 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In these writ petitions, which raise common issues, the petitioners seek the quashing of the orders-in-original dated 18.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) insofar as it operates against them. A prayer has also been made seeking a direction re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Steel Products Company Limited. There were allegations against both the officials, namely, Mr S. C. Rahi and Mr S. L. Bansal in the show cause notices issued to them. However, in the orders-in-original referred to above, both these officials have been exonerated and no penalty was levied on them. Thus, the position is clear that insofar as the petitioners- Mr S. C. Rahi and Mr S. L. Bansal - are concerned, no appeal was filed by the revenue in respect of them nor was any appeal filed by the revenue in respect of Buildex Metals or National Steel Products Company Limited in connection with which, notices have been issued to the petitioners. However, Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited had preferred appeals against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the finding of the Commissioner of Central Excise in the first round whereby both the petitioners had been exonerated. The department had consciously decided not to prefer any appeal and, therefore, no appeals were filed against the first round of orders-in-original insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and are of the view that the submissions made by the petitioners ought to be accepted. The reason for this is very simple. The petitioners were not parties before the Tribunal when the order of remand was passed by the Tribunal. They were neither made parties by the exporters nor by the revenue and there was no question of the petitioners having filed any appeal because the....