2016 (6) TMI 1126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs by Ext.P9. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that, while passing the impugned order the Commissioner did not follow the direction in the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.4616/2015 dated 04.03.2015. 3. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C). No.4616/2015 challenging the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the decision of Paul Merchants case and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh after adverting to Paul Merchants case supra. 4. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed this impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner adverted to Paul Merchants case and found out that, distinguishable features as against the assessee with regard to the law applicable as propounded in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have been drawn out not to follow the ratio in Paul Merchants case. 6. I am of the view that, distinguishable features made out by the Commissioner is based on facts. Paul Merchants case is required to be followed, if otherwise ratio is applicable. The appreciation of facts essentially required in this matter. The appropriate remedy, in this circumstances, is for the petitioner to redress appella....