9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed by this Tribunal. In fact, it was disposed of with an observation that such application is infructuous and does not call for any order. The reason being that at the time of consideration of an application for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue, no objection was taken on this aspect by the respondent. - appeal has not been filed in terms of the amended provisions of Section 35 F and Section 35 E. The impugned order has not been reviewed for a decision to file an appeal by the Committee of Commissioners as per the provisions applicable during the time - no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 2621/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/53102/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of the goods. The job work register and challans were not reliable as facts of removal to job work was not corroborated by the party during verification. The investigation proved that the job work challans and entries in the work register were fake and could not be relied upon to show the materials found short were actually sent for job work. The only plausible explanation for shortage is clandestine removal of these goods. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the maintainability of the appeal itself. He stated that the impugned order was passed on 25.04.2006.The appeal against the said order was filed by the Commissioner on 4.8.2006. In terms of the provisions of Section 35 E of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the facts of the case in detail and concluded that other than the alleged shortage, as indicated in the Panchnama, there is no corroboration whatsoever to establish the charge of clandestine removal of the excisable goods. 5. Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal, he argued that though the original appeal was filed by the Commissioner, later on a misc application no. 146 of 2009 was filed before the Tribunal to state that the Committee of Commissioners have approved the appeal on 12.02.2009 and as such, the appeal already filed on 4.2.2006 by the Commissioner should be taken as authorized by the said Committee. The said misc. application w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vation that such application is infructuous and does not call for any order. The reason being that at the time of consideration of an application for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue, no objection was taken on this aspect by the respondent. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the respondent, we find that whether the appeal itself maintainable or not is a legal question which can be raised at any stage of proceedings. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Vs. Bhillai Wires Ltd. reported in 2009 (236) ELT 40 (HP). We find that in the present case, the appeal has not been filed in terms of the amended provisions of Section 35 F and Section 35 E. The impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
