https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81154 The case involved a dispute over a refund granted by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Customs to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The Collector challenged the legality of the refund, leading to an appeal under Section 35E(2) of CESA, 1944. The authority of the Collector to file the appeal was contested, citing relevant case law. The judgment in M/s. Roplas (I) Ltd. v. UOI was invoked, but ultimately, the application filed by the Asstt. Collector was rejected due to the interpretation of Section 35E(2) and the necessity of issuing a show cause notice within the specified timeframe. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:35:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81154 The case involved a dispute over a refund granted by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Customs to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The Collector challenged the legality of the refund, leading to an appeal under Section 35E(2) of CESA, 1944. The authority of the Collector to file the appeal was contested, citing relevant case law. The judgment in M/s. Roplas (I) Ltd. v. UOI was invoked, but ultimately, the application filed by the Asstt. Collector was rejected due to the interpretation of Section 35E(2) and the necessity of issuing a show cause notice within the specified timeframe. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81154