1999 (11) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondents. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. The applicants have filed stay petition for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 20,47,771/-. 2. Shri B.N. Rangwani, ld. Counsel submits that the applicants are engaged in printing of polyethylene films. He submits that there are a number of decision of this Tribunal wherein the process of printing is held not to be the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the consent of both sides, we proceeded to hear the appeal itself. 5. Ld. Counsel submits that the authorisation given on review was invalid. He submits that under Section 35E(2), the Collector had reviewed the order of Addl. Collector but in the authorisation, he had authorised Deputy Collector to apply to the Collector (A) for determining of such points arising out of the decision or the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order. Thereafter he has to direct such authority to apply to the Collector for determination of such points arising out of the decision or the order as may be satisfied. There is no provision under that sub-section for giving the direction to any other authority to make an application to the Collector (Appeals). Though .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X