9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. Under the said order he had dismissed the appeal against the order dated 7-5-1981 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Mirzapur. The ground for dismissal was that the appeal had not been preferred within the time prescribed therefor in the Act. Under order dated 17-4-1984 this Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Collector (Appeals) upholding his finding that the appeal to him i.e. Collector (Appeals), had not been preferred within time prescribed therefor. This was on the basis that while the order of the Assistant Collector had been received by the appellant on 12-5-1981, the appeal against the same had been received in the office of the Collector (Appeals), through post, on 14-8-1981. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Bajpeyi contended that in view of this decision, there is a question of law to be referred to the Hon ble High Court at Allahabad. Therefore, though in the application various questions are referred to as questions of law arising out of the order of this Tribunal, his arguments were confined to the question as to what would be the date of presentation of the appeal when the appeal is sent through post i.e., whether the date of posting or the date of receipt. Shri Bhatia contended that no such question of law need be referred to the High Court. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and the authorities that would be relevant on this matter. We find that the following decisions of the several High Courts are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 35H of the Central Excises and Salt Act would contemplate a reference being made on the question of law direct to the Supreme Court. But we have found that there is a direct decision of the Supreme Court itself on this question of law. It is reported in F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others (1983 E.L.T. 1296 SC). Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the said judgment are as follows : Para 34. - It was then stated that the petitioner had not been given personal hearing of the appeal that he preferred to the Central Board of Revenue and the application in revision to the Government. But there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing. Furthermore, the appeal was out of time. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinks fit, confirming, altering or annulling the decision or order appealed against: Provided that no such order in appeal shall have the effect of subjecting any person to any greater confiscation, penalty or rate of duty than has been adjudged against him in the original decision or order. Every order passed in appeal under this section shall, subject to the power of revision conferred by Section 191, be final. 9. It is seen that the provisions of the said Section 188 are similar to the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Thus there is a direct decision of the Supreme Court that with reference to provisions as contained in Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act where there is no specific provision f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
