2004 (6) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 208/83 as regards ship breaking scrap used as raw material for rerolling is covered in favour of the assessees by the decision in L,G. Industries 2002 (53) RLT356(CEGAT-Mum.)=2000 (148) ELT43 as approved by the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (157) ELT A209. 3. As regards the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and his dismissal of the Revenue's appeal filed before him, on the grounds that the original order was passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order of Revenue was a direction given to the Deputy Commissioner to file these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were not permissible was as held by the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. vs. CCE 1999 (30) RLT 539 (CEGAT)=1999 (108) ELT498. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Collector of Central Excise in his order . On a careful reading of the provisions of Section 35E (2), it is quite clear that the power given to the Collector is to call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him had passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and direct such authority to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for determination of such points arising out of the decision or order. It is quite clear that Section 35E (2) contemplates only one authority whose orders or decision can be called for and examined by the Collector and that authority can be only an adjudicatin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SHM Exports 1989 (42) ELT 308, and Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd.1987 (29) ELT 401 and Falcon Tyres, since those orders were passed before the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE vs. M. Rubber Co. was pronounced on 4.9.1999. Para 6 of the Supreme Court's decision in M.M. Rubber Co. reads as under: 6. It may be seen that the direction to file an appeal under these two sub-sections by the Board and the Collector, as the case may be, is to the very adjudicating authority who would otherwise be bound by his own order and not expected to be aggrieved by the same. When an appeal is filed on such direction, the appellant will be the adjudicating authority himself and not the authority who gave the direction. This may not amoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X