2005 (8) TMI 424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the appellants despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. Having examined the records and heard ld. SDR, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of polyester blended yarn (Chapter 55 of the CETA Schedule). In January 199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellate authority. 3. Ld. SDR submits that this appeal is barred by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35B. She also points out that, in the preamble to the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) had given correct advice to the assessee to move the Central Government, if aggrieved, under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act. After looking up the provisions of law referred to by ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed as not maintainable. The appellants are at liberty to invoke Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act against the impugned order. It is felt that, as the party was pursuing a wrong remedy, apparently in good faith, the revisional authority would, for the ends of justice, condone any delay that might be involved in the filing of any application by the party under Section 35EE. (Dictated and pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X