2006 (2) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learned S.D.R. could argue the case on merits, the learned advocate for respondents raised a plea on the ground of limitation stating that the appeal filed by the department was beyond the time-limit permissible under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. In his pleading the learned advocate of the respondent stated that a review order under Section 35E(1) was issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs on 17-4-2000 by which the Board directed Commissioner, Central Excise. Pune-II, to file an appeal with Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune. This order was received by Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I on 31st May, 2000. As per provision of Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ember, 1995. The Commissioner, therefore, pleaded that the appeal was within time as it was filed within 3 months from the date of the receipt of order by him. The Hon ble Supreme Court, however, did not find favour with this plea and held that since the Board s order was endorsed to the Principal Collector Central Excise, New Delhi in whose jurisdiction the unit fell, the requirement of Section 35E that the communication of the Board s order should be made was satisfied long before 7th December, 1995. Consequently, the Revenue s appeal was held to be beyond time. The learned Advocate for the respondent therefore, submitted that the department s appeal should be dismissed as having been filed beyond permissible time. 3. The learned S.D.R. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondents, however, pleaded that under Section 35E, there is no provision for condoning delay and invited attention to Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai v. Azo Dye Chem - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 201 (Tri. - LB) wherein it was held that in an application filed under Section 35F(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal beyond the period of 3 months allowed by that clause as is the case in appeal under Section 35B. 5. We have heard the submissions made by both the parties. We find that the facts in the present case are squarely covered by the Hon ble Supreme Court decision cited supra (Para 13) and accordingly, we hold tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X