1989 (9) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, for the respondents. 3. In the course of his reply to Shri Chakrabporty's submissions, Shri Mookherjee, Counsel, for the respondents raised an important, legal objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. We have, therefore, considered it proper to dispose of this objection first. 4. In order to appreciate the objection raised by Shri Mookherjee, a few facts require to be stated. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, by his order dated 31-3-1982 on classification list No. 1/82 dated 31-3-1982, permitted the respondents to avail themselves of duty exemption in terms of Central Excise Notification Nos. 51/78, dated 1-3-1978, 52/78 dated 1-3-1978 and 105/78, dated 27-4-1978 in respect of electricity generate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is that since Shri B.N. Rangwani was the Collector who passed the Order-in-Revision, he could not have, as he did, examined the legality and propriety of his own order in his new capacity of Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs. However, Shri Mookherjee did not support this submission by reference to any authority. The learned Departmental Representative, however, submitted that Shri Rangwani as Member of the Board, was not sitting in judgment over the order which he had earlier passed as Collector. He was only examining the validity of the said order in exercise of the Board's powers and directing the Collector to file an appeal by an application to the Tribunal for determination of the points specified in the Board's order. As such....