9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajive Bhalla Allowed as prayed for. 2. Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record. C.M.No.13743-CII of 2013 3. Prayer in this application is for permission to make up the deficiency in affixing court fee. 4. For reasons stated in the application and arguments addressed by counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed. 5. The Commissioner of Central Excise, challenges order dated 25.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by holding that as the order passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioner's is barred by limitation and it has no jurisdiction to condone this delay, the appeal is not maintainable. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co. 1991 (55) ELT 289(SC).A relevant extract from the order reads as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hillai Wires Ltd. (supra). The judgment of the Tribunal in case of CCE. Raipur v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.(supra) is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in case M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd.(supra) which hgas been followed by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Bhillai Wires Ltd. (supra). 11. There is one more reason as to why the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould become invalid and revive such invalid and ineffective order." 8. A due consideration of relevant statutory provisions of Section 35(E)(i) and (ii) of the Act reveals that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in an order passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioner's, asking the Commissioner to file an appeal. The power to condone delay relates to filing the application. The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
