https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172346 The note explains that a Revenue appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act was treated as maintainable where the review authorization substantially conformed to the requirement of a committee of two Commissioners. It also records that the dispute under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, concerning reversal or payment of 8% on inputs used in exempted goods, was not finally determined because the factual record on separate accounts, stock entries, and the alleged admission required fresh examination. The matter was therefore sent back for de novo adjudication with all issues left open. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:47:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172346 The note explains that a Revenue appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act was treated as maintainable where the review authorization substantially conformed to the requirement of a committee of two Commissioners. It also records that the dispute under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, concerning reversal or payment of 8% on inputs used in exempted goods, was not finally determined because the factual record on separate accounts, stock entries, and the alleged admission required fresh examination. The matter was therefore sent back for de novo adjudication with all issues left open. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172346