9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants. None, for the Respondents. [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. This is a Reference Application filed by the Department (Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur) with reference to the order of the Tribunal No. E/255/91-D, dated 30-5-1991 in the case of M/s. New Victoria Mills, Kanpur. 2. At the outset, a question arose whether this application was maintainable or not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that it was in time and the appeal against the said order was rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order. Hence a reference could be made to the High Court although the order has been passed by a Special Bench. 5. In this connection, she would like to draw attention to the Reference Application and the questions mentioned therein. It was her conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect from 15-7-1977. However, the reduction was approved by the excise authorities on 23-7-1977, as a result the duty paid during the intervening period became refundable. The Assistant Collector had rejected the claim on the grounds of time bar but the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the same as the Assistant Collector was mistaken. Actually the claim was submitted to the Superintendent in the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Benches required to deal with Classification and rate of duty matters in view of the above position. Hence viewed in this perspective, the Reference Application was not maintainable and the only course open to the applicant was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court within the prescribed time. 9. Even if, however, we take only the Order-in-appeal impugned before the Tribunal into accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector (Appeals) are in line with the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Talayar Tea Co., Munnar v. Collector of C. Excise, Cochin - [1993 (64) E.L.T. 13 (Ker.) = 1990 (30) ECR 518]. 11.1 Furthermore, the applicant has himself referred to two Supreme Court judgments and it has been urged before us that the issue has been settled by these judgments of the Supreme Court. If so, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
