https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208316 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal ruled that the authorization to file the appeal was given to the Assistant Commissioner, not the adjudicating authority, making the appeal improper. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision on the correct determination of the assessable value of certain spirits. en-us Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208316 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal ruled that the authorization to file the appeal was given to the Assistant Commissioner, not the adjudicating authority, making the appeal improper. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision on the correct determination of the assessable value of certain spirits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208316