TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of the commodity, the product would not be classifiable for exemption under the notification. Notice was issued to the appellant, proposing denial of the benefit of notification. After considering the reply, hearing the appellant, the Assistant Collector passed orders denying the exemption. The appellant challenged this order before the Bombay High Court by a writ perition. The High Court, by its order, directed the Collector to call for and examine the record of the proceedings of the Assistant Collector in the present case and pass appropriate orders under Section 35E(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Collector passed an order on 25-4-1994 holding that the order of the Assistant Collector was legal, proper and correct. 2. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nore the directions of the High Court to which it is subordinate in the judicial hierarchy. Section 35B of the Act specifies the orders against which an appeal can be filed by any aggrieved person : (a) a decision or order passed by the Collector of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority; (b) an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A; (c) an order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963) (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Board) or the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under Section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the Collector of Central Excise, either befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin time. This contention is not acceptable. The High Court in its order did not say that if the appeal was filed within three months it should be treated as on time. The appeal is against the order dated 25-4-1994 (stated to have been communicated on or about 7-5-1994) of the Collector and time limit of three months for filing the appeal has to be reckoned from the date of communication of that order. 6. The contention that the order impugned in the appeal is erroneous, improper, arbitrary and has not been in conformity with the principles of natural justice is no ground for condonation of delay. However improper or incorrect the Collector s order may be, it does not explain the appellant s delay in filing the appeal. 7. It is next co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
