9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The appellants have claimed that the date of the final assessment orders dated 25-2-2004 and 25-3-2004 should be taken as 9-8-2004 as on that date the Deputy Commissioner communicated that the final assessment orders are appealable orders. 2. Shri Ravi Raghwan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cases of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. - (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 470 and Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) which were cited before us. We find that Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 dealing with Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) states that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 35(1). The Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated 9-8-2004 has only stated the obvious position in law that the order finalizing provisional assessment were appealable orders and such a communication which was in reply to the Appellant s query cannot alter the Appeal period prescribed under the Act under Section 35(1). There is no doubt in our mind that the Appeal period starts from the date th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appeals filed beyond 90 (ninety) days of the receipt of the orders of provisional assessment in this case are barred by limitation and he has, therefore, rightly dismissed the Appeals. In view of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Singh Enterprises (cited supra) we also find no scope to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate Authority in this case. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
