9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the Collector that slitting of Jumbo Rolls of magnetic tapes did not amount to manufacture; that both the refund claims were sanctioned by the Assistant Collector under Adjudication order dated 11-7-1990 and 25-7-1990; that as the Respondents had collected the duty from their customers, appeals were filed under the provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Roplas (I) Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.); that Collector (Appeals) rejected both the Appeals holding that decision in Roplas (I) Ltd. was no longer a good law as per the decision of Bombay High Court in New India Industrial v. U.O.I., 1990 (46) E.L.T. 23, and Caprihans India Ltd., 1991 (51) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein that the Collector (Appeals) orders are not proper and legal; the Collector has to first apply his mind which is missing in the present matters, and then only he can authorise the officer to file an appeal. He relied upon the decisions in C.C.E., Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.); C.C.E. v. Raghuvir Textiles, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 697 and C.C.E., Chennai v. Enfield India Ltd. 1997 (34) RLT 340 (T). He, further, submitted that the provisions of amended Section 11B which came into effect from 20-9-1991 were applicable only to all the refund cases pending grant of refund as was held by Calcutta High Court in Gopal Hosiery v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 542 (Cal.) and by the Apex Court in Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. Even in Rohit Pulp Paper Mills Case, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that Authorisation was neither proper nor legal as the note sheet containing directions of the Collector was not produced before them. The Hon ble Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. 1990 (47) E.L.T. 210 (S.C.) found the Authorisation of the Collector to be proper after going through the note in the file which was endorsed by the Collector and held that the language of the relevant section and the rules do not warrant a strained construction. As in the present matters, noting on the relevant files has not been called for, the Department s Appeal cannot be rejected on the ground that authorisation by the Commissioner was not proper. 5. We also d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months from the relevant date. Time limit of Section 11A could not be used in proceedings under Section 35 E for counting the time limit within which the application should be filed. Filing of the appeal or the application within five years does not safeguard the demand from the time bar if a time bar has arisen, and an order passed by the Appellate Collector under Section 35E cannot have the effect of nullifying section 11A and its time limit. The Appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision has been dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 8 (SC), (CCE v. Re Rolling Mills). These decisions have been followed by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Calcutta I v. Bells Control Ltd. wherein it was held as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
