TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the adjudicating Authority or any other officer higher in rank than the Adjudicating Authority. On the other hand, there are Tribunal’s decisions laying down that if the directions are not given to the Adjudicating Authority, the provisions of Section 35 E (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 stands violated, thus making the appeal filed by any other authority as not maintainable. As there are two decisions of the Tribunal, interpreted and the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CCE Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. [1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is different. Therefore matter needs to be resolved by the larger Bench. For the said purpose, we place papers before the Hon’ble President for constitution of a Larger Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the same was not maintainable inasmuch as the same was required to be filed by the Addl. Commissioner only, who adjudicated the case. By referring to the provisions of Section 35 E (2), he observed that the said section required the Commissioner to direct Such Authority to apply to Commissioner (Appeals) for determination of such points arising out of the decision. As such, he observed that the expression Such Authority appearing in the said Section 35 E (2) refers to the adjudicating authority and not to any other officer. As such, directions were required to be given to the Addl. Commissioner, who adjudicated the case and it was in terms of those directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn out attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central excise Vs. Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. 2005 (182) ELT 125 (Tribunal), in support of his plea that it is not necessary to direct only the adjudicating authority to file an appeal. 6. On the other hand, id. Advocate appearing for the respondent has drawn out attention to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Metro Steel Rolling Mills 2005 (66) RLT 324 (CESTAT-Mumbai) as also to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rourkela Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, BBSR-II- 2007(207) ELT 69 (Tribunal Kolkata) 7. Though we find that there are two streams of views on the said disputed legal issue but we would like to make reference to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bber Co. 1991 (55) ELT 289 (SC) and held in favour of the assesse by observing as under : - We derive support for this view from the Apex Court decision in CCE Vs. M. Rubber Co. (supra) relied on by Id. Counsel From the last sentence of the para extracted hereinabove, it is very clear that the Bench have derived support from the Apex Court s decision in the case of CCE Vs. M. Rubber Co. after having considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Falcon Tyres Ltd. reported in 1997 (18) RLT 92 (CEGAT-A) = 1997 (91) ELT 649. Therefore, we find no merits in the plea beign made now by the id. DR calling for to rely on the case of Sun Exports 1989 (420) ELT 308, and Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
