TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Singh, JDR for appellant Shri.A.P. Kolte, Advocate, for respondent Per: Ashok Jindal 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order, wherein the lower appellate authority has held that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a show-cause notice was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the submissions of the respondent and held that the appeal filed by the department under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not maintainable as the appeal is not filed by the such person, who has passed the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also passed the order and rejected the appeal of the department on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rits of the case, we feel that first issue is to be decided by us whether the appeal under Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals) or not and the impugned order on this issue is correct or not. As held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Silver Streak Welding Products India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court has he....