2010 (12) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th, Advocates, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)].  - Delay Condonation Application No. 3407 of 2009 : No counter affidavit has been filed to the application for condonation of delay. We have considered the averments made in the application made therefor. Being satisfied, we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal No. 1 of 2005 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I v. M/s. Deshrekshak Aushadhalaya Ltd., Haridwar). That decision was rendered in relation to question No. 1. Accordingly, in the review application, it has been stated that question No. 2 has not been decided. 3. We, accordingly, considered the review application and being satisfied that question No. 2 was not decided, recall the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that there is no substantial evidence to prove that the Director, appellant No. 2 before the Tribunal, was involved in evasion of duty by the company. These two factual findings were not disputed in the appeal. We are, therefore, ad idem with the Tribunal that when non-marketable defective goods were lying and a prayer was made for destruction thereof, there was no need of entering such goods in ....