9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tariff. 2. At the out set the learned advocate for the respondent raised the following two preliminary objections: (1) that the Collector has not formed and expressed an opinion that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was neither legal nor proper as required under Section 35B (2) of the CESA 1944. (2) The appeal, though filed with the Assistant Registrar of West Regional Bench within the statutory time limit of 3 months, was received in the Special Bench after expiry of that time limit and as such the appeal was barred by limitation and during the material time of the appeal Section 35D(2) read with rule 6(1) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 did not permit filing an appeal relating to a Special Bench matter before the Regional Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.C.E., Madras v. M/s. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Madras reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 323. The Tribunal held that the Collector had come to his opinion after considering all relevant facts and on application of his mind and therefore, non-disclosure of the reasons by the Collector in the authorisation order would not invalidate the authorisation and the appeal. The Tribunal held that all the necessary facts had been placed before the Collector for approval of the draft grounds of appeal. 5. The ratio and facts of these two decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. The two decisions cited by the counsel for the respondent are distinguishable from the facts of this appeal. In the case of CCE, Bangalore v. M/s. Mizar Govinda A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that such an appeal has to be filed before a Special Bench. In addition amendment to rule 6(1) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 vide CEGAT Notification No. 1/83 dated 26-12-1983 permitting to filing of the appeals in matters relating to a Bench before another Bench in case of urgency or for other sufficient reasons, makes explicit what was already implicit. Further the issue involved in the appeal was the entitlement of the respondents to the benefit of exemption notification and there was genuine confusion in the early years of the Tribunal as to whether Special Bench or Regional Bench had jurisdiction in the matter of application of exemption notification and both Special Benches as well as Regional Benches were entertaining appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
