9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk. It has been alleged that these parts of molasses tank appear to be not within the ambit of Rule 57Q of Rules as they are not used for producing or processing of any goods. By order-in-original dated 26-5-1995 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 48,000/-. The appellant filed an appeal along with stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) passed interim stay order in the year 1996 wherein pre-deposit of duty was waived. Thereafter, by Interim Stay Vacation Order dated 4-3-1998, Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the stay order on the ground that they failed to appear in personal hearing on one or the other pretext and directed the appellant to deposit the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-deposit. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Scan Computer Consultancy v. Union of India - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 43 (Guj.). 4. The ld. DR on behalf of the respondent submits that no appeal is maintainable against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21-9-2004 as the said order was not passed against any adjudication order passed under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find force in the submission of the ld. DR. The relevant portion of Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of filing appeal before the Tribunal is reproduced below :- Section 35 : Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) - ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order under Section 35A of the Act passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise officer lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise as provided under Section 35 of the Act. In this case, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21-9-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the representation filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 19-3-1998 and which is not covered under Section 35 of the Act. So, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21-9-2004 is not covered under Section 35A of the Act. So, the appeal filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal dated 21-9-2004 before the Tribunal is not maintainable. It is noted that the appellant di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
