9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TED BY : Shri D.P. Mukhopadhyay, SDR, for the Appellant. Ms. H. Aparna, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AT/641/Bel/2005, dated 30-11-2005. 2. When the matter was called out, the Advocate appearing for the respondent raised preliminary objection against the appeal filed by the revenue. It is her submission that the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. It is his submission that the same Commissioner was holding additional charges of Commissioner, Belapur. Hence, the authorization given by the ld. Commissioner in the capacity of Commissioner Belapur as well as the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad is conect. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raigad v. Remi Fans Pvt. Ltd., as reported in 2007-TIOL-573-CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Commissionerates, while reviewing the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Reliance placed by the ld. SDR in the case of CCE v. Remi Fans Pvt. Ltd., seems to be misplaced, as Division Bench decision in the case of Maikaal Fibres Ltd. (supra) was not cited before the Single Member Bench. Hence, the order of the Tribunal, in the case of Remi Fans Pvt. Ltd., seems to be per-incurium. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
