2002 (4) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e disposed of by this common order inasmuch as the issue for determination in these four appeals is the same. 2. The issue is whether the Commissioner, Central Excise can exercise a power vested in him under sub-section (3) of Section 35E to review orders and direct filing of appeals. 3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sequent to enactment of Finance Bill, 2000. The contention of the appellants was that Clauses 112, 113 of the Finance Bill, 2000 and Sections 116 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 do not authorise the Commissioner to demand the amount of service tax from the persons who had failed to pay it in terms of dropping of show cause notice. It was also contended by them that as per Sections 83 84 of this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati cited above held certain sections ultra vires . Finance Act, 2000 amended the sections retrospectively and therefore, those demands which were dropped consequent to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati , were revived. 8. In the instant case, we further note that the orders were reviewed by the Commissioner who dir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X