9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, for the Appellants. Shri L.N. Murthy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. 2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 18-5-1983 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why the excise duty b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor (Appeals) under Section 35E(4) of the Act seeking to set aside the said adjudication Order. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector filed the application (appeals) before the Collector (Appeals) who vide his impugned Order-in-Appeal allowed the same. Hence the present appeal by the assessee. 3. The only contention which was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that, under sub-sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Apex Court that the period of one year is to be computed from the date of signing of the Order by the Adjudicating Authority as the date of communication of the Order to the Department is not relevant. In reply, Shri L.N. Murthy, learned JDR, left the matter to the discretion of the Bench in view of the said judgment of the Apex Court and submitted that, whatever was argued on behalf of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the review order. (Collector) This delay has been satisfactorily explained. After that there is no delay in filing the EA 2 application. Collector (Appeals) is bound to hear the appeal made within prescribed time of review order. 5.1 In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber & Co., Tamil Nadu, supra, the Apex Court has held that the period of one year fixed under sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
