TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Jas Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 7. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is by the Revenue. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT" for short). The impugned order of the Tribunal, copy of which is at Exhibit-3 dated 9th February, 2017, allows the appeal of the assessee. 3. Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed before the Tribunal, then, the Tribunal's finding at page 390 of the paper book in paragraph 36 of the impugned order is wholly illegal and erroneous. It is perverse as well. Our attention is invited by Mr. Jetly to the findings in the order of the Commissioner and who says that the duty foregone, amounting to Rs. 10,15,17,810/- can be recovered as the provisions of section 28(2) proviso of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons. Duty is not demandable from the assessee and he is entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 98 of 2009. 7. Hence, even assuming there is an error in the finding on the point of limitation, still, the substantive conclusion remains unaffected. This issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) vs. USMS Saffron Company Inc., 2016 Vo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and germane for the issue. The Tribunal may have agreed with the Commissioner had it referred to all these materials, but today this is a matter of pure conjecture and surmises. We do not wish to indulge into any guesswork for the substantive conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned order is non-appealable. 9. Presently, the Tribunal found that the issue raised in this Appeal of the assessee....