SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.P. Bharucha, Doraiswamy Raju and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 7436-7437 of 2000. D/d. 23.3.2001.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad - Appellants

Versus

M/s. Triveni Glass Limited - Respondents

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Section 35L - Departmental Representative, who argued on behalf of Revenue before the Tribunal stating that he had argued before the Tribunal that "the assessee had definitely collected sums over and above the amounts disclosed to the Revenue as realisation for the sale of goods" - Counsel for respondent - Counsel for appellant prays for leave to withdraw civil appeals to enable appellant to move Tribunal in review - Appeals dismissed as withdrawn.

[Paras 1 and 2]

ORDER

S.P. Bharucha, J. Our attention has been invited by learned counsel for the appellant to the affidavit by Sanjeev Srivastava, Departmental Representative, who argued on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal and the statement therein (in Para 2) that he had argued before the Tribunal that

"the assessee had definitely collected sums over and above the amounts disclosed to the Revenue as realisation for the sale of goods".

2. Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned counsel for the respondent, who also appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal, submits before us that no such argument was made.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for leave to withdraw the civil appeals to enable the appellant to move the Tribunal in review. The civil appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

.