Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sentini Ceremica P. Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Nov-30-2009 |
| C/S/208 of 2009 and C/354 of 2009 |
| THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER |
| Commissioner of Customs, Chennai |
| M/S. Sentini Ceremica P. Ltd. |
| Shri C. Dhanasekar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate for the Respondents. |
per jyoti balasundaram the application filed by the revenue for stay of operation of the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has directed passing of order on merits on refund claim by the assistant commissioner is rejected as no ground for exercise of our inherent power has been made out. 2. we take up the appeal itself for hearing as we find that the impugned order is only of remand to the assistant commissioner. in view of the fact that the commissioner (appeals) has only directed remand to the assistant commissioner for passing a speaking order on merits, we uphold the impugned order as we do not see any warrant to interfere with the same as there is no legal infirmity therein, and dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
Per Jyoti Balasundaram
The application filed by the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has directed passing of order on merits on refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner is rejected as no ground for exercise of our inherent power has been made out.
2. We take up the appeal itself for hearing as we find that the impugned order is only of remand to the Assistant Commissioner. In view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only directed remand to the Assistant Commissioner for passing a speaking order on merits, we uphold the impugned order as we do not see any warrant to interfere with the same as there is no legal infirmity therein, and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal.