TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable and did not suffer from any infirmity of not having proper authorization. Considering the amount involved in the present issue well below ₹ 10 lakhs , the appeal is dismissed on this ground. - Appeal dismissed - Excise Appeal No.2494/2007-SM(BR) - Final Order No.51743/2016 - Dated:- 2-5-2016 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri M.R. Sharma, DR. For the Respondent : Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate. ORDER Per 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te and one of the Commissioners has not signed with date and the appeal is not preferred in accordance with a proper authorization in terms of Section 35 B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Ld. AR contested the argument of the respondent and submitted that the exercise of powers under Section 35 B(2) has been a subject matter of decision by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case - L.R. Sharma 2014 (35) STR 3 (Delhi) upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 2015 (39) STR J-83 (SC) and Honble Allahabad High Court in Devson Steels - 2014 (301) ELT 295 (All.), Ufan Chemicals - 2013 (290) ELT 217 (Allahabad) and Standard Surfactant Ltd. 2013 (289) ELT 416 (All.). He also submitted that in a similar set of facts, on the same qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppreciating the factual and legal position as above, I find that the issue is no more res integra and the same High Court of Chattisgarh in a latter decision answered the question of law now referred to this Tribunal for decision. As such, following the decision of the Honble High Court as mentioned above and also of various other decisions of the High Courts, referred to above by the Revenue, I find that in the present case the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable and did not suffer from any infirmity of not having proper authorization. 5. Having answered the question of law and maintainability of the appeal, I find that the appeal is covered by amended litigation policy of the Government issued on 17.12.2015 and made applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
