9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri K.M. Srirangan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Bhatia, S.D.R.., for the Respondent. [Order per : Kalyanam, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 24-12-86 rejecting the appellant s appeal before him in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ( the Act for short), on grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithstanding the fact that the present impugned order before the Tribunal is interlocutory in nature. The learned Counsel further contended that the balance sheet produced by the appellant and connected documents relating to the financial position of the appellant and the plea relating to prima facie legal un-sustainability of the original order were urged before the Collector of Central Excise (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd comprehensive and the impugned order, therefore, cannot be characterised as non-speaking as understood in law. The learned S.D.R.. urged that the ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel is not applicable to the issue involved in the present case. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein. It is not disputed before us that the impugned order appealed against is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here cannot be an appeal of the same before the Tribunal in law. The grievance of the learned Counsel that the appellant s plea with specific reference to the balance sheet and other financial particulars as also the prima facie legality of the order of the original authority were not considered, could be redressed, by the appellant taking out another application before the Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
