TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed these Appeals against a common impugned Order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the impugned Order was passed in violation to the principles of natural justice as the copies of the relied-upon and unrelied- upon documents seized f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 3. I find that in the case of MIL India Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court noticed the amended provision of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, whereas in the case of Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter. In the present case, I find that the situation is peculiar. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 2004 (173) E.L.T. 117 (Guj.) = 2004(09) LCX 0038, held that even after amendment to Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner has power to remand. This view is followed by this Bench in the case of in the case of CCE, Kolkata-III v. Panihati Castings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 57 (Tri.-Kolkata) = 2008 (10) LCX0295 and other cases. Further, I find that the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
