2006 (2) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri K.S. Bhatt, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is aggrieved with the OIA No. 108/2004-C.E., dated 27-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin. The Tribunal, vide their Final Order No. 110/96, dated 15-12-1996, remanded the matter to the original authority for re-computation of duty. The Tribunal clearly held that the merits of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an inadvertent error, the Counsel for the appellants, at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, had not contested the merits and had only raised the point pertaining to calculation on the basis of the quantum of goods cleared by evading the duty during the period from September, 1988 to January, 1989. He submits that the appellants' plea for arguing the case on merits should have been considered....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tage. The matter was argued in their appeal before the Southern Bench, Chennai in earlier proceedings and the Tribunal had remanded the matter by Final order No. 110/1996, dated 15-12-1996 solely for computation of duty. The Advocate and the Party had not contested the merits of the case. He further submits that in this circumstance, the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were boun....