9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the appellant has not placed on record any reason for which the Jurisdictional Commissioner wants to review its order and wants to file appeal. Merely because after the expiry of the period of limitation he has changed his mind, itself is no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Such ground, in our opinion, is not sufficient for condoning the delay. Thus, in these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the present case no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the CESTAT. Appeal dismissed. - 74 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2008 - Satish Kumar Mittal and Rakesh Kumar Garg, JJ. [Order per : Satish Kumar Mittal, J.]. - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise Chandigarh, which was allowed on 30-3-2006 and it was held that the assessee was entitled for credit of Rs. 4,31,021/- against the demand of Rs. 2,81,904/- as also pleaded by it in para 4.2 of the reply to show cause notice supplied to the Adjudicating Authority, and the Adjudicating Authority has failed to give any finding on the same. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Apex Steels (P) Ltd. v CCE, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 368, abatement on account of Modvat is to be allowed in case the duty is demanded at later stage. Therefore, the demand raised by the revenue we held to be not sustainable and the penalty was also held to be not imposable. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, by raising the aforesaid substantial question of law. 6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the provision of Section 35B(2) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise is to discharge the administrative function under Section 35B(2) of the Act and at any point of time, he is empowered to review its order not to file an appeal against an order. He further submits that in case the impugned order passed by the CESTAT is not set aside, the revenue will suffer an irreparable loss and in that eventuality, large number of units will indulge in illegal activity of getting benefit without following proper procedure laid dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise has no power to review his decision of not filing the appeal against an order, when earlier the said order was accepted and the department decided not to file appeal against the said order. 9. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 35B of the Act provide as under : (2) The Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise may, if it is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on its behalf to the Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
