2017 (12) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed on 23/11/2011. The same was assailed by both the parties on different grounds. The Departmental appeal No.E/757/2012 was dismissed on 21/12/2016 by the Tribunal vide final order No.E/56336 of 2016. 3. Regarding the appeal filed by the assessee, the matter was earlier remanded to the Original Authority vide order dated 10/05/2012 pertaining to the duty demand of Rs. 77,61,426/-. In pursuance given direction of the Tribunal, the Adjudicating Authority has passed the fresh order which is the impugned one. 4. The appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order is only on the ground that in the remand, direction was issued by the Tribunal for denovo adjudication after setting aside the order. The Original Authority now should have e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nds of Cross Objection respectively. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The only point on which the Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order is that when the remand direction was given by the Tribunal, the Commissioner should have decided the case afresh by not restricting to the dispute of Rs. 77.61 lakhs which was agitated by the respondent in their appeal resulting in the remand direction. We note that the Revenue relied on the final order of the Tribunal which is : "7. In view of the above, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for denovo decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant". 8. We h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... original was limited to disallowance of two out of eight deductions claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal was in that appeal concerned only with the question whether the adjudicating authority was justified in disallowing deductions under the said two heads. It had no occasion to examine the admissibility of the deductions under the remaining six heads obviously because the assessee's appeal did not question the grant of such deductions. Admissibility of the said deductions could have been raised only by the Revenue who had lost its case qua those deductions before the adjudicating authority. Dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee could consequently bring finality only to the question of admissibility of deductions under the two hea....