ANDHRA ORGANICS LIMITED Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM GST
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 434 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
APPLICATIONs No. E\/ROM\/30722-30723\/2018 In APPEAL Nos. E\/30445-30446\/2018 – M\/30580 \u2013 30581\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri M. Rajendran, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri C. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Superintendent \/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao
\n1. These applications for rectification of mistake were filed by the applicant against the Final Order No. A\/30750-30751\/2018, dated 24.07.2018 on the following grounds:
\na) At the time of hearing of the appeals, the Counsel submitted that the Order-in-Appeal for t<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d on merits. I have not found any evidence to support either argument. Be that as it may, the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a binding precedent on the CESTAT and therefore an independent decision can be taken in this regard”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ANDHRA ORGANICS LIMITED Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM GSTCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 434 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 20-11-2018APPLICATIONs No. E\/ROM\/30722-30723\/2018 In APPEAL Nos. E\/30445-30446\/2018 – M\/30580 \u2013 30581\/2018Central ExciseMr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri M. Rajendran, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri C. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Superintendent \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: … Continue reading “ANDHRA ORGANICS LIMITED Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nOn the second question of binding precedence of the CESTAT's decision as claimed by the applicant, the final order specifically relied on the ratio of the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Manikgarh Cement [2010(20) STR 456 (Bom.)] and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Limited [2009(240) ELT 641 (SC)], while deciding the matter.
\n3. I, therefore, find that there is no error apparent on record calling for rectification of mistake.
\n4. The applic<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n