2017 (7) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, appellant's/ Assessee's miscellaneous application, to seek extension of time, in complying with the directions contained in the stay order dated 28.11.2014, and utilisation of Cenvat credit was dismissed. 2.1.Pertinently along with the appellant's application, the applications of the thirteen (13) other appellants, (who were also aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, and are connected with the appellant herein), had also been filed, which were dismissed by the impugned order. 2.2. The Tribunal dismissed the applications of the co-applicants on the ground that the conditions of stay, which were stipulated in the order dated 28.11.2014, were directed towards the main appellant, i.e., the appellant herein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een made? 3)Can the dismissal of the miscellaneous application dated 27.1.2015, acknowledged on 30.1.2015 by order 41060/2015 dated 13.8.2015 be considered as proper and legal, when no finding has been given on the right to claim cenvat credit" 6.Mr.Srinivas, who appears for the Revenue, argues that the questions of law, framed in the matter, do not arise, from the impugned judgment and order. 7.Ms.Naveena, who appears for the appellant/ Assessee concedes as much. 8.Therefore, the questions of law as framed, need not detain us. We decline to answer the questions of law. 9.Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the impugned order will have to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to address itself to the crucial aspe....