https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51183 Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act was construed as a workable procedural provision that does not require the Board's direction to be issued only to the exact Commissioner who passed the adjudication order. Read with the statutory scheme on Commissioners, adjudicating authority, assignment and transfer of functions, the phrase "such Commissioner" was held to include a successor or holding-charge Commissioner where appropriate. The later amendment to Section 35E did not justify a narrower reading. On that construction, the objection to maintainability failed and the Revenue's appeals were treated as tenable. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:57:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51183 Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act was construed as a workable procedural provision that does not require the Board's direction to be issued only to the exact Commissioner who passed the adjudication order. Read with the statutory scheme on Commissioners, adjudicating authority, assignment and transfer of functions, the phrase "such Commissioner" was held to include a successor or holding-charge Commissioner where appropriate. The later amendment to Section 35E did not justify a narrower reading. On that construction, the objection to maintainability failed and the Revenue's appeals were treated as tenable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51183