Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodra vs Rohit Pulp Paper Mills on 30 April, 1998

Commissioner vs M/S on 13 November, 2008

In this context, the statement of law made by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills (Supra) may be usefully referred to. The provisions of Section 35B(2) clearly require as a pre-requisite to the direction to any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal the formation of the opinion by the Collector that the order against which the appeal is to be filed is 'not legal or proper' .
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jugal Krishna Paul vs Chief Commissioner Of Service Tax, ... on 26 November, 2019

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil wherein while contesting the order of the FAA, he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Collector of Central Excise vs. Rohit Pulp Papers Mills and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. B. E. Office Automation.
Central Information Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India ... vs Cce, Delhi Iii on 5 November, 2013

In this context, the statement of law made by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills (supra) may be usefully referred to. The provisions of Section 35B(2) clearly require as a pre-requisite to the direction to any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal the formation of the opinion by the Collector that the order against which the appeal is to be filed is not legal or proper.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

From What We Have Indicated Above And On ... vs 4.4 Investigation Revealed That A ... on 30 December, 2015

11.2 Tribunal not being vested with writ jurisdiction has no power to review the opinion of the Committee since the first stage of formation of opinion by the Committee is only necessity of section 129 D (1) of the Act following the ratio laid down in the case of Commr. Of C. Ex. Cus. Surat -1 Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing & Ptg. Works  2008 (232) ELT 775 (Guj). Tribunal may only ascertain factual compliance with the statutory requirement of section 129 D (1) of the Act. Therefore objection of Respondent that the committee has not examined the impugned order as to legality or propriety thereof is unsustainable in absence of power of judicial review vested on the Tribunal to review the opinion of the Committee. The Committee has not travelled beyond its jurisdiction.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce New Delhi Ii vs M/S. Unitron Ltd. on 28 February, 2001

9. The ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in CCE Vadodara Vs.Rohit Pulp Paper Mills, (supra) relied upon by the counsel is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In that case, there was no formation of the opinion by the Collector who signed the authorisation that the order appealed against was not legal and proper. Neither the authorisation nor not-sheet indicated whether the impugned order was illegal or otherwise even on the noting was not produced before the Apex Court. The Collector simply authorised the Superintendent without applying the mind. It was under these circumstances, the Apex Court opined that the authorisation was not proper while upholding the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Revenue being not maintainable due to defective authorisation. But in the case in hand, such are not the facts. As observed above, the perusal of grounds of appeal drafted by the Collector who signed the authorisation letetr, shows that he applied his mind and came to a definite conclusion that the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) was not legal land proper. He specifically mentioned so in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, it can be safely said that he applied his mind and thereafter signed the authorisation letter authorising the Assistant Collector to file the appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals). His omission to repeate in the authorisation letter the same words that the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) was not legal and proper which he mentioned in the grounds of appeal, was not essential and omission on his part did not render his authorisation invalid so as to non-suit the Revenue by dismissing their appeal on this ground.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Choksi Brothers on 14 December, 2000

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and arguments on the preliminary objection. The text of the authorisation by the ld. Collector available on record has been perused. It purports to authorise the Asstt. Commissioner to prefer the present appeal in pursuance of the provisions of Section 35B against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The words "not legal or proper" as used under Sub-section (2) of Section 35B do not figure in this text of authorisation. The controversy before us revolves round this aspect. On a perusal of the decision cited by the ld. counsel, we note that in all the 4 cases considered by the Tribunal, a view was taken to the effect that, in the absence of appropriate noting by the authorising officer in his file, any authorisation by him for filing appeal under Section 35B(2) without expressly using the words "not legal or proper" in the text of authorisation would not be considered to indicate application of mind by the said officer to the order sought to be appealed against. We, however, note that it was almost in a similar factual situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of Rohit Pulp Paper Mills (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that formation of opinion by the Collector that the order appealed against was not legal or proper was a pre-requisite under Section 35B. It is pertinent to note that this decision was rendered in a situation in which no note sheet of the Collector containing any entry of such opinion was produced before the Court.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M.M. Thakkar And Sons on 18 October, 2007

12. Reliance placed by the counsel for the respondents on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rohit Pulp Paper Mills (supra) is wholly misplaced. In that case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was that the Collector of Central Excise had simply authorised the Superintendent to file an appeal without application of mind. Thus, in that case, apart from authorisation there was no other material on record to suggest that the Collector had come to the conclusion that the order against which appeal was authorised was not legal and proper. Moreover, before the Apex Court the revenue failed to furnish noting, if any, maintained by the Collector recording reasons for not accepting the decision of the lower authority. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that in the absence of any material to show that the Collector was satisfied that the order of the lower authority was not legal and proper, the authorisation was invalid and consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was invalid. In the present case, the Commissioner has given detailed reasons as to why the order in original was not acceptable. Therefore, reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rohit Pulp Paper Mills is totally misplaced.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs R.C. Industries on 22 January, 2003

In view of the objection raised by the Respondent's Counsel and following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision referred to above, we find lot of force on the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. We find that authorization is not in proper form since, 35E (2) relates to filing and appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of this position, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next