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

.... Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... even if benefit of doubt is given and it is 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the review order passed by him was time-barred 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 per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n error, corrected the same. It could not be said 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) signe....