9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, there is no delay in filing the appeal; that the Board reviewed the impugned Order in exercise of the power under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act vide Order 21-R/2000, dated 7-2-2000; that the Review Order was passed within one year from the date of the impugned Order; that the Review Order was sent to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and subsequently the corrigendum was issued to the effect that in the Review Order for the word "The Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, New Delhi," "the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II" be read; that the Review Order was received by the applicants on 1-5-2001 and the appeal has been filed on 17-5-2001 which is within the period specified under Section 35E(4) of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating Authority has passed any decision or Order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or to propriety of any such decision or Order and may, by order, direct such Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such point arising out of the decision or order as may be satisfied by the Board in its order. Sub-section (3) provides that no order shall be made after expiry of one year from the date of the Order of the Adjudicating Authority. Sub-section (4) provides that an application to the Tribunal has to be made within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the Order under sub-section (1). It is not in dispute that the Central Board of Excise & Customs issued the Review Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh notice is not acceptable merely because a wrong Rule was quoted which was corrected by corrigendum subsequently as the grounds had been stated clearly. The decision in the case of Quinn India Ltd. is not applicable as the facts are completely different. In the said matter initially in the Review Order point of limitation was not specified by the Board A corrigendum was issued for including the plea of limitation on the basis of which the Commissioner had decided the matter in favour of the Respondents. In view of these facts the Tribunal held that the corrigendum in that matter constituted a fresh ground on limitation under review procedure undertaken by the Board. We find substance in the submission of the learned D.R. that the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
