9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Board Member nor the review file of the Board has been produced before us despite several directions. The relevant provision under Section 35E(3) at the material time was that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Following decision of CCE, Trichy vs. Vel Pharma [2012 (7) TMI 31 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL NO.E/A/631/2007 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75382/2014 - Dated:- 17-6-2014 - DR. D.M.MISRA AND DR. I.P.LAL, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI A.K.BISWAS, A.R.(SUPDT.) FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI K.P.DEY, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Per Dr. D.M. Misra This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Review Order was passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners, pursuant to Section 35E(3) of CEA44, after a period of one year from the date of the Order. The said provision, as was in force at the relevant time, reads as follows:- SECTION 35E (1) . (2) . [(3) The [Committee of Chief Commissioners of Central Excise] or Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, where it is possible to do so, make order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), within a period of six months, but not beyond a period of one year, from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority.] This Tribunal in the case of Vel Pharma(supra), considering similar situation, obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndoned by the Tribunal as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd. - 2010 (257) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.-LB). Both of us were members of the Larger Bench in that case and we are aware that the said order was passed taking note of the subsequent amendment to Section 35E vide para 22 thereof. As far as these cases are concerned, the relevant provision under Section 35E(3) at the material time was that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, these cases would be governed by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Rubber (cited supra) to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
