2025 (1) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....athi , Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Selvakumar , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Shri P. Dinesha The SCN dated 18.04.2007 issued by the Commissioner/Original Authority, initially proposed to recover tax of Rs.1,38,95,688 along with penalty under Ss.76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, apart from interest u/S.75 ibid. The same came to be adjudicated by the Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said order, the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the interest u/S. 75 and penalty u/S. 76 only. It appears, not satisfied with the above order, the assessee appears to have approached this Bench by filing another appeal. The Bench after hearing both the parties, vide Final Order No. 41741-41742/2017 dated 16.08.2017, has set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner/Adjudicatin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee-Appellant in the present appeal before us. 3. Heard Sri M.N. Bharathi, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sri M. Selvakumar, ld. Asst. Commissioner for the Respondent, we have carefully perused the documents placed in the Appeal record and we have also considered the contentions of the both the parties before us. After hearing both the sides, we find that the only issue to be decided b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Grounds of Appeal urged. Hence, by not filing any Appeal, department cannot feel aggrieved and thereby encash the remand order by misinterpreting such order to its benefit. Clearly, the same amounts to abuse and misuse of the process of law and hence, in our view, the Original Authority has grossly erred in taking advantage of the remand order by misinterpreting and thereby travelling beyond ....