9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of ₹ 24,76,143/- on M/s. Apollo Pipes Pvt. Ltd. and ₹ 18,85,993/- on M/s. V.S. Exim P. Ltd. by clubbing their volume of clearance on the premise that those two companies were run and manage by the same management. The Commissioner (Appeals) consequently set aside the penalties imposed on M/s. Bihar Tubes Ltd., M/s. Apollo Pipes P. Ltd., M/s. V.S. Exim P. Ltd., Shri Sanjay Gupta, M.D., Shri Vinay Guptam, Director and Shri Sameer Gupta, Director. 2. Shri M.P. Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondents at the outset had taken a preliminary objection that these appeals are not maintainable as proper authorisation as envisaged under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not obtained before filing of the appeals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointwise reviews on four points raised by him. The Inspector concerned and Superintendent (R) thereafter submitted a fresh note answering the query raised by Assistant Commissioner (Review), and the file was forwarded by Joint Commissioner (Review) under his signature dated 17th of March, 2006 to the Committee of Commissioner for considering file of appeal before CESTAT. Aforesaid note is signed by respective members of the Committee on 20th 21st March 2006 respectively that while signing the note neither of them have given a specific opinion that the matter is fit for filing appeal nor they have recorded that they have gone through the record of adjudication and appeal. It is also not clear from the file noting if the record of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natures on the note forwarded by the subordinate officers in our view is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, therefore, we conclude that instant appeals have been filed in violation of mandate of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as such, the appeals are not maintainable. In our aforesaid view, we find support from the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CCE, Delhi-I v. Kundalia Industries reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 351 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the matter of CCE, Delhi-III v. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 24 (P H). 9. For the reasons recorded above, above said six appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
