2011 (4) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chennai Vs. M/s Standard Pencil Pvt.Ltd [2004 -TMI - 49000 - CESTAT, NORTHERN BENCH, NEW DELHI]- Decided in favour of assessee. - C/922-924/2006 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri Anand Nainawati, Adv. for the Assessee; Shri R. Nagar, SDR for the Revenue. Per: Mrs. Archa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2.06. Therefore, the review order being time barred in each case, the applications made by the ACC Porbandar, under sub-Section 129D(E) of the Act, cannot be admitted as appeals. 3. Revenue has filed the present appeal, submitting that though the impugned order was passed by Assistant Commissioner on 31.1.2005, the same was issued on 25.2.05. For the purpose of Section 129D(3), the date of iss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rious decisions on the issue, it stand held by the Larger Bench that a fixed interpretation is to be given to Section 129D(3) which provides the period of 1 year from the date of the decision or order. As such, there is no merit in the Revenue s case to submit that the date of issuance of the order is to be considered as relevant date. Inasmuch as the issue is covered, we find no infirmity in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X