2002 (4) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Member (J)]. - This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18-5-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal of the department against the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16-10-97 who dropped the demand of Rs. 26,37,949/- against the respondents. 2. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that was passed on 16-10-97, the order is still time-barred as contended by the respondents. This order i.e., dated 16-10-97 does not contain any direction to the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal, to file an appeal which is contained in a different order which is dated 16-10-98, but it is merely a draft unsigned by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal. As such, the authorisation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red and that the authorisation was non-existent, are factually incorrect. The review order was passed within stipulated period as the original order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 16-10-97, while the review order was passed by the Commissioner on 16-10-98. The date of passing of the Order-in-Original was to be excluded for computing the period of one year within which the Commissioner wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that he had passed two orders or that the date had been anti-dated by him, as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 6. Regarding non-existent of the authorisation for filing the appeal, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous. The bare perusal of the order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) signed at the end of the grounds of appeal on the basis o....