Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Island Stone (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 26 April, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI COURT NO. III ST/STAY/196/2010 IN & ST/APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2010 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 23/2009 (ST) dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur] Dated of hearing/decision: 26th April, 2010 For approval and signature: Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Mr. D.N. Panda, Judicial Member 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Island Stone (India) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent Appearance: Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the appellants; Shri Fateh Singh, Authorised Representative (DR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Mr. D.N. Panda, Judicial Member ORAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________
Per Dr. C. Satapathy:
Heard both sides.
2. In this case the impugned orders were signed by the original authority on 26.4.2007, though the order is dated 30.10.2007. Review order has been passed on 28.10.2009. It is the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of provision of Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 which describe a period of two years from the date on which the order are sought to be revised has been passed. He also cites decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. M.M. Rubber Co., reported in 1991 (55) ELT 289 (S.C.) in support of his arguments.
3. Heard learned D.R.
4. In view of the specific provision under Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994, and applying the ratio of decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. (supra) cited by the learned Advocate we find that the order in view has been passed after expiry of two years. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Stay application is also stands disposed of.
(DR. C. SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK ??
??
??
??
2