2010 (7) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hearing. Therefore the ROM application is taken up for final decision. 2. According to the appellants the Tribunal erred in omitting to take into consideration the fact that the earlier remand order of the Tribunal was not followed by both the lower authorities. According to the appellants, in terms of the remand order the lower authorities were required to decide the issue in terms of settled law as laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Nelco Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.). It was also observed by the Tribunal that the deposits made as per the directions of the settlement commission are to be treated as pre-deposits in terms of provisions of Section 35F. Therefore both the lowe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... noticed that in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal, it has been taken note that the lower authorities have decided the issue as per the remand directions by considering the Board's circular and settled legal position. It was also observed that the Board's circular was issued in obedience to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd [2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)]. Therefore it was observed that the lower authority's order was correct. In any case the decision in the case of Nelco Ltd. cannot be applied to the present case in view of the fact that in that case the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the petitioner and thereby matter attained finality. Whereas in this case the appellants deposited the admitted duty liabi....