TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent. [Order per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides. The applicant/appellant has filed the ROM application against the order dated 4-2-2005 [2005 (183) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal)] on the following grounds :- (a) It appears from this Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 4-2-2005 that though the Applicant's partner, Shri Sunil Gunvantlal Shah was present in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the applicants had categorically stated in Para 7.1. that they are not sharing common office with Atul Drug House (ADH), that in Para 8.1 had submitted that they have their own separate telephone connection and ADH had their own separate connection, However, this Hon'ble Tribunal in Para 4 have observed that the facts regarding common premises, common staff etc. has not been denied by the Appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to recall the order and give opportunity to the Applicants to argue the grounds taken in Memo of Appeal including the written submission. (f) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.) had allowed restoration of the appeal rejected by an order pass....