2004 (6) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Respondent. [Order per : M.P. Bohra, Member (J)]. -  This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order passed by Commissioner of Appeals dated 23-4-2003 by which the review application filed by Revenue was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Kettella Tea Estate, P.O. Borgang, District-Sonitput, Assam is an industry, manufacturing tea including ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant. None was present for respondent. Learned JDR submits that in present case the proper authorisation was given by Commissioner, Central Excise, Shillong and on the wrong pretext the review has been rejected. He place his reliance in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Electrols - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 463 (Tribunal) and Collector of Central Excise v. Berger Paints India Ltd. - 1990 (4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for filing appeal not necessary". Similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in case of Collector of Central Excise v. Electrols reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. Page 463 that authorisation to file an appeal, the Collector is not under any legal obligation to record the reasons or ground for forming opinion about order of Collector. Only formation of such opinion is necessary. In present case also ....