TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to seek review given by the Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and not the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner), the appeal is not maintainable under Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in the eyes of law - Therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, hence, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rative fees recovered from the buyers of the goods. The adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner) dropped the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the adjudication order was reviewed and authorised the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalgaon to file an appeal against the said order. The objection was taken by the respondent that as per Section 35E (2), the only authority, who pass the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , reported in 1991 (51) ELT 232 (Bom) and submitted that in view of the cited judgements, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that this appeal is not maintainable as held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Silver Streak Welding Products India Pvt Ltd., reported in 2008 (226) ELT 704 (Bom). 5. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Bombay. 7. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, wherein the lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal on the ground that the authorization to file the appeal was given to the Assistant Commissioner and not to the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner), therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in the eyes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
