2016 (10) TMI 670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l No. 2569/2011-EX (DB): "(i) Whether the CESTAT's final order is justified and legally correct which has been passed on technical issue without going into facts and merits of the case ? (ii) Whether the CESTAT's findings that no opinion was formed by the Committee of Commissioners and they just appended their signatures on the respective note sheet, were correct ? (iii) Whether the review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners was legally correct which was signed on different dates and at different places ? (iv) Whether the review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners signed on different dates should be treated as individual decision or decision of Committee of Commissioners ? (v) Whether the Review order pass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for filing appeal, while approving the opinion expressed by a subordinate officer, that is sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as against the judgments of Delhi High court, being relied upon by the appellant, there are two orders passed by this Court in C.C.E., Delhi-III v. B. E. Office Auotmation Products Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (249) E.L.T. 24 (P&H) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. Elegant Enterprises, 2015 (323) E.L.T. 333 (P&H), wherein it has been opined that approval by the Committee of Commissioners on a note put up by the subordinate officer is not sufficient compliance for for....