1 WP No. 35 of 2002 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2002 Union of India and ors. : Petitioners. versus Tainwala Chemical & Plastic (India) Ltd. and others. : Respondents. Mr. Pradeep S Jetly a/w R B Pardeshi for the Petitiones. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & R.M.SAVANT,JJ. DATE :- 14th September ,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue. None for the Respondents. Perused Petition. 2 The Tribunal by cryptic order dated 26.04.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue without even discussing the issue raised and without even recording the reasons in support of the said order. Only reason given in the impugned order for dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue is, omission of words, “not legal and proper” in the order of Addl. Collector (Legal & TR), Central Excise, Bombay-1. 3 Affidavit along with Note-sheet filed on record by the Revenue clearly demonstrate the existence of the words, “the order in appeal is not correct and legal for the grounds mentioned therein”. If this Note-sheet is 2 WP No. 35 of 2002 considered in its proper perspective, then the impugned order cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. 4 In the above view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. The Tribunal shall take into account the Note Sheet duly assigned by the Addl. Collector (Legal & TR), Central Excise, Bombay-1 while deciding the remanded Appeal. 5 Needless to mention that the matter is quite old one, the Tribunal shall make all endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. 6 This Petition is accordingly disposed. 7 All the rights and contentions raised are kept open. (R.M.SAVANT,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)