9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. The brief facts of the present appeal by the Revenue is that respondent are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron etc. liable to central excise duty. Certain proceedings were initiated against them for short payment of central excise duty which resulted in order-in-original dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunals order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to record a finding on the following limited question of law:- "Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as there was no proper review or authorization in accordance with Section 35 B(2) of the Act, 1944." 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appeal is not maintainable as there is no pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also submitted that in a similar set of facts, on the same question of law, Honble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 18.07.2013 held as below:- "9. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 B [35B(2) of the Act provides that the appeal against the order of the Commissioner under Section 35 can be filed if the Committee of Commissioners of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and further appeal should be filed against the same. This was done in the present case. The appeal of the Department could not be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that both the Commissioners have not signed at one time. 13. The question is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee." 4. Having heard both the sides and appreciating the factual and legal position as ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
