TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent. [Judgment per: K.L. Manjunath, J.]. - The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT in Misc. Order No. 415 of 2004 in Appeal No. 101 of 1999 and in Final Order No. 970 of 2003 [2004 (177) E.L.T. 498 (Tri.-Bang.)] raising the following substantial questions of law. "(a) Whether the relevant date, for the purpose of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97 wherein the confirmed demand of duty for Rs. 5,01,730/- and the remaining demand was dropped and the order of adjudication was passed by him on 21-10-1997. On the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, [for short 'the Board'] the matter was taken up for scrutiny under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short 'the Act']. 3. It was noticed by the Board ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed the order on 30-9-1998 and therefore the decision of the Board has to be treated as within one year from the date of adjudication by the Commissioner. 8. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The learned counsel for the appellant submits as the order dated 7-12-1998 is only formal one since the original order was passed ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the Board is dated 7-12-1998 and no material is placed before the court to show that the Board, in fact, had taken decision within one year from the date of adjudication by the Commissioner. When no material is placed before this court to show that the Board had taken such a decision, this court cannot hold that the order passed by the Board on 7-12-1998 is well in time. 12. We are al....