1999 (8) TMI 377 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Review order passed beyond the period fixed by Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Validity of the remand order for de novo consideration by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bombay.

Analysis:
1. The main contention in this case was whether the review order passed by the Collector was beyond the time limit specified under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that since the original order by the Assistant Collector was dated 14-4-1988 and received on the same day, the review order dated 17-4-1989 was time-barred. However, the Collector justified the timeliness of the review order by explaining that the date of the order should be considered as the date when the Assistant Collector affixed his signature, which was 18-4-1988. The Tribunal agreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that in 1988, no one could have predicted the exact date of the Collector's review order, and hence, the review order was passed within the stipulated period.

2. The impugned order by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bombay remanded the case for de novo consideration by the Assistant Collector. The remand order directed the Assistant Collector to grant certain deductions to the appellant in accordance with law, specifically related to freight, octroi, additional sales tax, transit assurance, cash discounts, and special secondary packing. The Tribunal found that due to this remand, the appellant was not adversely affected as the Collector merely instructed the subordinate authority to issue a fresh order considering the demands for discounts in compliance with the law. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid ground to interfere with the order of remand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant. The review order by the Collector was deemed timely, and the remand order for de novo consideration was considered appropriate without adversely affecting the appellant's interests.