9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding Products India P. Ltd. - Bombay High Court - [2007 -TMI - 4580 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY]) - E/1942/04 & E/CO-512/2004 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance: Shri V.K. Agarwal, SDR for the appellant Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the respondent Per: Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) This is an appeal filed by the revenue against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original was reviewed under Section 35E by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Nashik who issued direction to the Dy. Commissioner to file the appeal against the order passed by Additional Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has held that appeal filed by Dy. Commissioner is not legally maintainable as under Section 35E(2), Commissioner, Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. After going through appeal papers, we find the short question involved in this case whether the Commissioner can authorize Dy. Commissioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) when the Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner. The issue stands settled by this Tribunal in case of M/s CCE Nashik vs. Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act, 1944. We are bound by the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay." 5. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that authorization to file the appeal was given to the Dy. Commissioner and not to the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner). We therefore uphold the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
