TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (9) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, Advocate, for the Respondents. ORDER The appeal has been filed by the Department (Collector of Central Excise, Madras) against the order of the Central Board of Excise, New Delhi, in Order-in-Appeal No. 262 to 268 of 1982 dated 11-8-1982. The respondents (M/s. Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., Madras) are licensees in respect of manufacturing of Tariff Item No. 29A. On 15-4-1981,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red were neither parts of refrigerating appliances nor cabinets used in the refrigeration. This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Board. 2. When the appeal was taken up, Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection. According to him, the Collector (Appellant) cannot be considered as "any person aggrieved" under Section 35B of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clude the juristic "person", namely the Government. He relied on the ruling reported in 1978 E.L.T. 523 (Union of India v. Sham Lal Dey and others). In that decision, it was held that the words "any person" would include any juristic "person" or artificial person. According to Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, the ruling cited envisaged the possibility of the Department challenging the order afortiori. The pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd of Excise and Customs or the Appellate Collector, as it stood before the appointed day and orders passed by the Board under Section 35A. The provision also envisages the Collector of Central Excise preferring an appeal to the Tribunal against the orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise in certain circumstances. It is significant to note that the provision does not contemplate....