2014 (9) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri S.B. Saraf with T.M. Siddiqui, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The Court : Being satisfied with the grounds made out in the petition, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. On June 4, 2012, the original order was passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt in the case of Pearl Drinks Ltd. [2010 (255) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)], held that the doctrine of merger does not apply. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come up in appeal. 7. We are convinced that the Tribunal was clearly wrong. In the case of Pearl Drinks Ltd., the Apex Court did not opine that the doctrine of merger does not apply. What had happened in that ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed, not only the original order merged into the appellate order, but all points with regard thereto became res judicata. Therefore, it was no longer open for review. Therefore, the order dismissing the review application was unexceptionable. The Tribunal, however, should have disposed of the appeal against the order dated September 21, 2010 including the question of condonation of delay which the ....