TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13, where the Tribunal allowed the Revenue appeal in respect of inclusion of assessable value of acoustic enclosures in assessable value. In respect of other issues involved in the Revenue appeals, the Tribunal rejected revenue's appeals. 2. The Ld. Advocate submits that the miscellaneous applications were filed on 31.12.2013 and since then it was listed on several occasions viz., 2/7/2014, 23/09/14, where the Ld. Counsel sought for time and again it was listed on 15/4/2015 and the Ld. Counsel again sought adjournment. Again it was listed on 27/4/15 and the Ld. Counsel prayed for extension to get instructions from his client as to which application shall be pursued before the Tribunal. Again it was listed on 11/6/15, 1/7/15, 10/8/15 and on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1996 (86) ELT 472 (S.C.) 2. Dalal Auto Engineering Industries Vs. CCE, Faridabad-2015 (315) ELT 220 ( P & H) On the ROM application he submits that since the Revenue filed appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order on this particular issue there was no allegation in the SCN that these accessories were manufactured by them, which is clearly evident from the SCN. Therefore, these facts are clear mistake and the appellate authority has examined this issue and allowed their appeal in their fabour as these are bought out items and this mistake is apparent on record. Therefore, he pleaded for rectification of this mistake. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR vehemently opposes both applications for restoration of appeals and applications fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia Vs. Commr.-2015 (322) ELT A232 (S.C.) 3. Unworth Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur (CG)-2014 (302) ELT 492 (Chattisgarh) 4. Shalimar Ispat Udyog Vs. CCE, Raipur-2014 (302) ELT 403 (Tri.-Del.) Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the ROM applications and pleads to dismiss all the ROM application. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that in respect of ROA applications filed by the respondents, their main ground is that the Ld. Counsel sought for adjournment on the date of 04.04.13 on the date of hearing of the Revenue appeal before the Tribunal, as he had to appear for hearing in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and contends that instead of giving one more chance the appeal was heard ex-parte and order passed on merits. We find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndings, and the respondent's reliance on the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra) are clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case as we find in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court has allowed in the cases where the ex-parte orders were set aside and the appeals were restored. Whereas in the present case, we find that the Tribunal has given its detailed findings and held in favour of the respondents except acoustic enclosures. Therefore, the citation relied by the respondents are clearly distinguishable and we do not find any merit in the applications filed by respondents for restoration of appeals. Accordingly, all the three ROA applications are dismissed. 7. As regards ROM appl....