2007 (9) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....006 (3) S.T.R. 276 (Tribunal) = 2004 (170) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. - Del.), was denied justice. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the definition of Clearing and Forwarding Agent not interpreted on the touch stone of law by the Authorities below, the agreement was held otherwise, while the agreements of Mahavir Generics and the Appellant are in the pari materia. Had the Authorities examined the entire agreement in the light of the decision of the Mahavir Generics case, the Appellant would not have been prejudiced. Therefore, without looking to the substance of the agreement and the nature of duties, responsibilities and activities, the Appellant was dealt to the detriment of justice. Further, he submits that the impugned Order was passed on 29-9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Chennai reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 355 (Tri.- LB) and the manner how such questions were answered that can be gathered from para 35 of the reported decision. For the very cogent reason that the Appellant was neither a clearing and forwarding agent nor was covered by either Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. decision or Super Poly Fabriks Ltd., the Appellant should be held to be squarely covered by Mahavir Generics case. According to him, his submission is founded on the factual agreement available on record. None of the terms of the agreement takes away the Appellant from the sweep of Mahavir Generics decision. Therefore, a categorical finding on the factual aspect is essential for a rational decision. The First Appellate Order under challenge was ....