9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, Advocate, for the Respondents. ORDER The appeal has been filed by the Department (Collector of Central Excise, Madras) against the order of the Central Board of Excise, New Delhi, in Order-in-Appeal No. 262 to 268 of 1982 dated 11-8-1982. The respondents (M/s. Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., Madras) are licensees in respect of manufacturing of Tariff Item No. 29A. On 15-4-1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured were neither parts of refrigerating appliances nor cabinets used in the refrigeration. This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Board. 2. When the appeal was taken up, Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection. According to him, the Collector (Appellant) cannot be considered as "any person aggrieved" under Section 35B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclude the juristic "person", namely the Government. He relied on the ruling reported in 1978 E.L.T. 523 (Union of India v. Sham Lal Dey and others). In that decision, it was held that the words "any person" would include any juristic "person" or artificial person. According to Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, the ruling cited envisaged the possibility of the Department challenging the order afortiori. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard of Excise and Customs or the Appellate Collector, as it stood before the appointed day and orders passed by the Board under Section 35A. The provision also envisages the Collector of Central Excise preferring an appeal to the Tribunal against the orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise in certain circumstances. It is significant to note that the provision does not contemplat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the decision passed in a criminal trial. In the course of the observations, the High Court has pointed out that the Department had not challenged an earlier finding of the Customs Department. So we do not agree that the decision would apply to the facts of the present case. The ruling reported in 1984 ECR 990 has considered the effect of the present provisions and we are in respectful agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
