https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113931 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the importance of adhering to the statutory timeline for reviewing Commissioner's orders under Sec. 35E of the Act. It clarified that the one-year review period should be calculated from the date when the reviewing authority applies their mind to the matter, not from the date of communication. By referencing legal precedents, including the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Company, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal as the review was not conducted within the stipulated time frame, affirming its decision based on established principles and timelines set forth in the law. en-us Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2012 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113931 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the importance of adhering to the statutory timeline for reviewing Commissioner's orders under Sec. 35E of the Act. It clarified that the one-year review period should be calculated from the date when the reviewing authority applies their mind to the matter, not from the date of communication. By referencing legal precedents, including the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Company, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal as the review was not conducted within the stipulated time frame, affirming its decision based on established principles and timelines set forth in the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113931