2011 (7) TMI 1116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Anil Katiyar, Advocates, for the Appellant. ORDER Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice on the respondent, none has appeared to contest this matter. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that this appeal is practically an off-shoot of the orders passed by the Tribunal in Case No. E/2404/99-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and by judgment and order dated 8-3-2006, dismissed all the aforesaid appeals. The said decision rendered by this Court is reported as 2006 (197) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 307 (S.C.). One of the parties, namely, the present respondent went to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was entertained by way of reference and decided by the High Court on 5-4-2010. By the said order the Div....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e direct the High Court to take up the Revision Petition afresh and while doing so, the High Court shall take notice of the decision of this Court in Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported as 2006 (197) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 307 (S.C.) wherein this Court has practically answered the identical issue. 8. Consequently, the impugned judgment and ....