2010 (11) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... REPRESENTED BY :  Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sumit Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President]. - In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the order dated 21-7-2010 passed by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7060 of 2009 and connected matters. The order reads thus - "We....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the Commissioner was not justified in taking the view in the contra to the Board's letter and the Notification. The appellants have maintained the records of the inputs used in the photography, nowhere it is stated in the Circular and Notification that the inputs used in the photography should be mentioned in the invoices/bills issued to the customer. The reasoning given by the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No order as to costs." 3. Plain reading of order dated 23-4-2009 discloses that the said order refers to remittance of the matter to the Tribunal and not of dismissal of the petition filed by Revenue. However, the order dated 21-7-2010 specifically refers to a dismissal order dated 23-4-2009. Learned Counsel for the appellants states that there is no other order passed on 23-4-2009 referr....