2017 (5) TMI 1502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Petitioner: Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shri Amrito Das, Advocate. ORDER Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan , Chief Justice 1. Respondent is served. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Revenue. 3. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is admitted on the following substantial question of law formulated on 09.11.2016 at t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Revenue argued that a bare reading of the order of CESTAT would show that though it was dealing with the Appeal at the instance of the assessee, no grounds have been stated therein whereby the reasons are disclosed to end with the reversal of original order dated 03.03.2009. 5. We have examined the impugned order of CESTAT and the original order. We also see that the Revenue is justified ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the assessee was much after the issuance of the order of the Commissioner after availment of the abatment of 67% from the gross amount charged under Notification. 6. We are of the view that the Revenue is entitled to an opportunity of consideration of its submissions on facts and in law by the CESTAT. Accordingly, the impugned order is only to set aside and an order of remit is made there....