1999 (5) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In this Revenue appeal, the Order-in-Appeal No. KVV-147/91 BRD, dated 16-9-1991/25-9-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) has been impugned on the ground that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be super-imposed over Section 35E of the Act with an over-riding effect as both sections are independent of each other. 2. When the case was called, no one appeared for the respondents, who .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llector (Appeals) leading to the order-in-appeal impugned. Ld. DR submits that in this order the ld. Collector (Appeals) has held that since no show cause notice was issued under Section 11A by the Department for recovery of refund allegedly given erroneously, therefore, no order could be passed on this appeal under Section 35E. Ld. DR submits that the two Sections are independent and there is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder Section 11A. This, in our considered opinion, is an incorrect position of law. We find that the two Sections noted above exist and operate independent of each other. Therefore, the ld. Collector (Appeals) should have applied his mind and passed the order on merits of the case as provided for under Section 35E etc. But that order could have fallen short of ordering any recovery of the sums inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X