2016 (6) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Piyush Kumar, Advocate. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. The brief facts of the present appeal by the Revenue is that respondent are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron etc. liable to central excise duty. Certain proceedings were initiated against them for short payment of central excise duty w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r order dated 25.02.2011 set aside the Tribunals order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to record a finding on the following limited question of law:- "Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as there was no proper review or authorization in accordance with Section 35 B(2) of the Act, 1944." 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard Surfactant Ltd.  2013 (289) ELT 416 (All.). He also submitted that in a similar set of facts, on the same question of law, Honble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 18.07.2013 held as below:- "9. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 B [35B(2) of the Act provides that the appeal against the order of the Commissioner under Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st agree on the opinion that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and further appeal should be filed against the same. This was done in the present case. The appeal of the Department could not be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that both the Commissioners have not signed at one time. 13. The question is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee.....