2025 (6) TMI 1262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TISHI ] There is a preliminary objection by the department that since they are not the aggrieved party in the appeal filed by the department, they could not have filed cross objections. The learned Advocate for the Respondents submits that in the event of the same, their cross objections may be treated as counter. 2. The department is in appeal against the OIO No.43/2012 dt.30.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner, whereby, he has partly confirmed the demand against M/s Safe Parentals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), vide Appeal No.E/1906/2012. They are also in appeal against the OIO No.42/2012 dt.30.03.2012, whereby, part demand was confirmed against M/s Safe Formulations Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), vid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judicating authority since the claim is correct. It was categorically held that except for the quantum, which is to be arrived at by verifying the amount paid and payable, they did not find any other issue in the appeal. Admittedly, against the said order of the Tribunal, neither the present respondent nor the department has gone in appeal. It is also informed that the said remand proceeding is currently pending before the original adjudicating authority. 5. On the other hand, learned AR points out that on merit there is clearcut observation and the Tribunal has held that the method of calculation adopted by the adjudicating authority is correct and they have come in appeal for dropping the demand beyond the normal period. However, they al....