https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212238 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not maintainable. The appellant was advised to file a revision petition under Section 35EE of the Act. The Court did not delve into the issues equating demand under Section 11A with rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, or determining if the matter related to rebate or mode of payment, as the primary concern was the appeal's maintainability. The appellant was granted the right to seek an extension of time under the Proviso to Section 35EE(2) of the Act despite allegations of great injustice. en-us Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212238 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not maintainable. The appellant was advised to file a revision petition under Section 35EE of the Act. The Court did not delve into the issues equating demand under Section 11A with rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, or determining if the matter related to rebate or mode of payment, as the primary concern was the appeal's maintainability. The appellant was granted the right to seek an extension of time under the Proviso to Section 35EE(2) of the Act despite allegations of great injustice. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212238