TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (1) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e list filed by the assessee. The assessee has filed Appeal E/5262/91-A against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay on the application in Form EA2 filed by the Department seeking review of the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector. Shri S. Ganesh, who was appearing for the assessee is not present today. The assessee's Administrative Manager, Shri R. Ganesh, who is present, says that Shri S. Ganesh is engaged in the Supreme Court. We are not in a position to grant any adjournment or to postpone the hearing of the case. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR. The Manager of the assessee states that he is not in a position to address arguments. 2. The assessee, engaged in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals. 3. At the outset, the assessee has raised certain objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 35E of the Act. According to the assessee, the review appeal was barred by time, was not according to rules and was not signed by the Assistant Collector and authorisation by the Collector of Central Excise was not proper. We find no material in support of any one of these contentions. The Assistant Collector passed the Order-in-Original on 30-11-1988. The Collector of Central Excise on 28-11-1989 passed the order directing the Assistant Collector to file the appeal under Section 35E of the Act before the Collector (Appeals). This order was required to be passed within one year and was, in fact, passed within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the impugned order relied entirely on the decision of the High Court of Bombay to come to the conclusion that deduction of cost of caps and caping charges was allowable. Since the decision no longer stands, the matter requires fresh consideration in the light of the available facts. Therefore, the finding in this regard made by the Collector (Appeals) has to be set aside. Our attention is invited by the assessee's Manager to the report in 1997 (91) E.L.T. A175 indicating that the Supreme Court has dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1037/95 filed by the Department against CEGAT Order No. 200/95-A, dated 23-2-1995. The report indicates that the Tribunal following its earlier decision reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 342 had held that the value of pla....