2015 (10) TMI 2193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Pratik, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv., Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. R. Ramachandran, Adv. And Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. ORDER This appeal arises out of orders dated 05.09....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....We find that reference was made by departmental authorities to the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. No plea about its non-applicability was taken in the grounds of appeal before the CEGAT and though it was vehemently urged C.A. No. 1169/2007 1 that the point was specifically taken before the Tribunal, we find no mention thereof in the CEGAT's order. The matter can ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vy on account of misrepresentation of facts by the respondents." On remand, the CESTAT decided the matter vide its orders dated 22.11.2005 holding that in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment, penalty is to be imposed at Rs. 2,57,90,900/-. It is qua this order, the rectification application was filed by the respondent. We find that the impugned order which is passed thereon does not amo....