9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - Each of the appellants received on 20-3-2001, an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty from the assessee, Electrofronts, and imposing a penalty on it and under Rule 209A on Sanjay Mehta, its proprietor. The appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order was required to be filed, as the law then sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e does not have the power under the amended Section 35 to condone the delay of 57 days. Hence this appeal. 2. Representative of the appellant accepts that the provisions which were amended being procedural in nature, the amended law will have retrospective application and would ordinarily apply, in normal course, to the appeal that was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). He however places r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than 60 days earlier. The court, in its judgment, recognised that the change in law was merely change of forum, i.e. a change of procedural law and would operate retrospectively. By considering the provisions, however, it noted that the change of forum was meant to be operative retrospectively irrespective of the fact as to when the accident occurred. On the consideration of the provisions of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, we do not find any ground provided in exception to the matter of procedural law that would apply by means of which the period of limitation contained in amended law will apply. An incidental fact to be taken note of is that the proposed amendment was part of the budget proposal of 28th March and would no doubt in the ordinary course have come to the attention of an assessee. This however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
