1984 (9) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER The following questions said to be of law as arise from Order ED(MAS) 323/83, dated 22-3-84 of this Bench have been raised for being referred to the High Court in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 1. Whether the provisions of Rule 56A (3)(i)(c) of Central Excise Rules as amended by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a 9 of its order, the Tribunal has observed: "The appellant's contention is that it is merely directory whereas the Senior Departmental Representative's contention is that it is mandatory and that only the Central Government is empowered to relax the requirement. We do not think it is necessary for us to pronounce a verdict on the question whether the requirement is directory or mandatory." Henc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said Rules (Central Excise Rules, 1944) is followed. It was in this context that the Tribunal had to consider whether non-observance of the provisions of Rule 56A(3) would or would not disentitle the applicant/appellant to the benefit of the concession. On this point, the Tribunal has found, "In the present case, as we have observed, there had been admittedly delay and the remains unexplained. Wh....