9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the lower appellate authority allowing the benefit of small-scale exemption to the respondents. Shri J.A. Khan, ld. SDR appearing on behalf of the department states that the impugned order-in-appeal is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. Shri J.A. Khan, ld. SDR, after due verification from the department, fairly states that this is a fact that the said order of the original authority allowing the benefit to the respondents has been accepted by the department after review. 3. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant also raises a preliminary objection to the department's appeal filed pursuant to review order cum-autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. We find that this issue was dealt with at length in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Customs, BBSR-II v. Gupta Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 90 (Tri.-Kolkata) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 248 (Tri.-Kolkata) and after examining the legal provisions under Section 35B(2) and Section 35(1B), it was held that the legal requirement after the 2005 amendment is that the Committee of two Commissioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed an order, which is not legal or proper and authorize filing an appeal against the same. Such an interpretation would render the 2005 amendment nugatory, as such authorization would be no different from an authorization given prior to the 2005 amendment." The above view has been subsequently followed in the cases of Commr. of Central Excise, BBSR-I v. Indian Plastics Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
