TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtainly carry the matter in further appeal to the CEGAT, or such authority as may be prescribed. wherever a departmental authority is conferred with the power to reopen, or review the proceedings, under the Act to satisfy itself, it has either to confirm or modify or set aside the orders, under its consideration. Under Section 35E of the Act, the order passed in the first instance has to satisfy itself about the correctness thereof. However, if it finds that the order under its consideration is not correct, the only course left open to it, is to require an authority under the Act to prefer an appeal before the Board against such an order. Beyond that, it cannot express any view on merits. Even on close verification of grounds of Reference, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... traded, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be treated as a product manufactured by them. The explanation was found satisfactory and the Commissioner passed an order, dated 23.03.1995, dropping the proceedings. The Committee of Board of Customs and Central Excise (for short the Board) verified the order, dated 23.03.1995, in exercise of power under Section 35E of the Act. After verification of the record, it passed an order requiring the Commissioner to prefer an appeal against the order, dated 23.03.1995. Accordingly, an appeal was preferred before the CEGAT. After hearing both the parties, it dismissed the appeal through order, dated 09.08.2002. Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhaley, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Excise, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not correct, the only course left open to it, is to require an authority under the Act to prefer an appeal before the Board against such an order. Beyond that, it cannot express any view on merits. In the instant case, the original authority did issue a show cause notice to the respondent, and on consideration of the explanation submitted by the latter, passed an order, dated 23.03.1995, dropping the proceedings. It was almost a case of arithmetics and an ordinary verification. The exercise did not involve in any process of interpretation and application of provision of law. After the appeal was preferred, the respondent placed before the CEGAT the relevant material. The Chartered Accountant certified that while the quantity of 2696 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
