TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of review, the Joint Commissioner was appointed in place of Additional Commissioner. As per Section 35E(2), the appeal is required to be filed by such authority which has passed the Adjudication order. In this case, the direction to file an appeal was given to the authority which has passed the Adjudication order - appellant is able to prove that they have procured the goods through prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a trader of polyester yarn. On intelligence, investigation was conducted on the premises of the appellant and polyester yarn was seized as it is a prohibited item. Therefore, the appellant were asked to produce the source of procurement on the premise that the goods found in their godown may be smuggled in nature as per provision of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order, appellant is before me. 3. Shri Nadkarni, ld. counsel for the appellant took preliminary objection that Adjudicating Authority's order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Ld. Commissioner on review has asked to file an appeal to the Joint Commissioner. Therefore as per the Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal filed by the revenue befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this matter although the Adjudicating order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, but at the time of review, the Additional Commissioner was transferred and Joint Commissioner took the charge and the appeal was directed to be filed with said authority which has passed the Adjudication order. Therefore the objection raised by the ld. counsel is not sustainable. 6. On merits, he submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed the Adjudication order. Therefore, the objection raised by the ld. counsel is not maintainable. 9. On merits, I find that in this case, appellant is able to prove that they have procured the goods through proper channel. Further, investigation revealed that the supplier of the goods is not procured the goods through proper channel but no proceedings have been initiated against the supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
