9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unication. The limitation period under section 35E(3) is the same, i.e three months from the date of communication of the order, irrespective of whether the order under section 35E(1), was issued by the committee of Chief Commissioners or in case of difference between the Chief Commissioners, by the Board – the delay is not condonable – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 3413 of 2012-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 56357/2013-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 22-4-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain , DR For the Respondent: Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order in original No. CHD-CEX-001-Com-026 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (285) ELT 321 SC], the delay in filing the review appeal under section 129D(4) can be condoned; and that since reasons for delay in filing review are genuine, this is a case where the delay must be condoned. 4. Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, pleaded that in this case the delay is not in filing of appeal under Section 35E (4) after issue of Review order under Section 35 E(1), but is in issue of the order under section 35E(1) by the Board, that in terms of the provisions of Section 35 E(3), while the Committee of Chief Commissioners or the Board, in case of difference of opinion between the two chief Commissioner of the Committee can review the order passed by the Commissioner within a period of three months from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be issued within 3 months from 7/6/12 i.e. by 7/9/12, the review order under Section 35E (1) has actually been issued on 10.10.12. Thereafter, the appeal under Section 35E (4) has been filed within a period of one month of this order. Thus the delay is in issue of review order under Section 35E(1), which is not condonable in view of the Apex Court s judgment in case of M M Rubber (supra) which has been followed by Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Bhillai Wires Ltd. (supra). The limitation period under section 35E(3) is the same, i.e three months from the date of communication of the order, irrespective of whether the order under section 35E(1), was issued by the committee of Chief Commissioners or in case of differenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
