: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Customs Appeal No.22 of 2009 Customs Appeal No.22 of 2009 Customs Appeal No.22 of 2009 The Commissioner of Customs (Import) ...Appellant. V/s. M/s.Ramdhan Mohanlal Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr.R.Asokan, , adv. for the Appellant. Ms.Shefali Salion, adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 15th April, 2009. DATE : 15th April, 2009. DATE : 15th April, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 15.12.2006 whereby the appeal preferred by them was dismissed on the ground that Tribunal by an order dated 4.7.2005 at the instance of assessee, where the revenue was a party had set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for deciding upon the quantum of redemption fine and penalty after taking into account the appellants submission and calculations on the point of margin or profit. 2. The issue raised in the appeal could have been canvassed by the Appellant/Revenue here in the appeal preferred by the Respondent herein. : 2 : 3. The respondent/Customs were represented before the CESTAT when the appeals preferred by the Assessee were disposed off. 4. Without going into the issue, as to whether there was merger of the orders once the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, there is no order which could have been considered by the appellant without considering the appeal filed by the Customs after the first order was set aside. 5. Considering the above, in our opinion, questions of law as framed would not arise and consequently, appeal stands dismissed. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)