2025 (8) TMI 1742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Appearance: For the Appellant: Mr. Vipul Kundulia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv. Mr. Niraj Baheti, Adv. The Court :- 1. It appears that there are some inadvertent mistakes occurred in the grounds raised by the appellant/revenue. 2. Leave is granted to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/revenue to correct those defects ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....G of the Act. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt.Ltd., 2013 [295] ELT 680 [Karnataka]. It is submitted that in the said decision it was held on identical fact situation that an appeal under section 35G was not maintainable. The appeal filed by the ....