Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Cce on 1 January, 1990
In the case of Malhotra Steel Products v. CCE the adjudication order was passed by the Additional Commissioner; the Commissioner had directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application before the Commissioner (Appeals); the Tribunal held that the proceeding is defective following the Judgment in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills case cited supra.
M/S Sun International Exports vs Cc, Nhava Sheva on 19 April, 2001
11. The decision in the case of CCB v. Falcon Tyres Limited and Sun Export Corporation v. CC relied upon by the learned SDR do not advance the case of the Revenue as neither of these decisions had noted the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector v. M.M. Rubber Co. while in the Dhampur Sugar Mills decision the above Supreme Court Judgment has been relied upon.
Cce vs Bombay Tyres International Ltd. on 28 November, 2000
5. According to the Revenue the expression "such authority" used above is also to be qualified by the clause "as may be specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise in his order." Reference is also made to Section 35E(4) which provides that an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) can be made by the adjudicating authority or the authorised officer and the submission of the Revenue is that the mention of authorised officer in addition to adjudicating authority was necessitated because of the possibility of the Commissioner authorising another officer subordinate to him, other than the adjudicating officer, to file an appeal under Section 35E(2), Reliance is also placed by the learned SDR on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Falcon Tyres Limited wherein the Tribunal held that Section 35E(2) requires a broad interpretation, reading it in harmony with Section 35E(4) of the Act and that the Collector can issue direction to the adjudicating officer, or any other officer, and the officer directed by the Collector or an officer authorised by the latter can file the application; and Sun Export Corporation v. CC wherein it was held that a harmonious construction of the provisions of two Sub-sections 129D(2) and 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 would indicate that in cases where the adjudicating authority is unavailable for being directed, it is reasonable to conclude that the direction can be fulfilled by another Customs Officer authorised by the Collector, although he may not be the officer who adjudicated the case. It is therefore prayed by the learned SDR that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded for de novo consideration on merits.
The Collector Of Central Excise, Madras vs M/S. M.M. Rubber & Co. Tamil Nadu on 4 September, 1991
11. The decision in the case of CCB v. Falcon Tyres Limited and Sun Export Corporation v. CC relied upon by the learned SDR do not advance the case of the Revenue as neither of these decisions had noted the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector v. M.M. Rubber Co. while in the Dhampur Sugar Mills decision the above Supreme Court Judgment has been relied upon.
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Graham Firth Steel Products (India) ... vs Cce on 22 January, 1999
In the case of Malhotra Steel Products v. CCE the adjudication order was passed by the Additional Commissioner; the Commissioner had directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application before the Commissioner (Appeals); the Tribunal held that the proceeding is defective following the Judgment in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills case cited supra.
Grasim Industries Ltd. And A.S. Kothari vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 20 July, 2001
In the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Flexoplast Abrasives (I) Ltd. cited supra the bench followed the earlier decision in the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore which in turn has relied upon the Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut decision cited supra.
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Customs, Excise And Gold (Control) ... on 4 January, 1991
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I note that in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut the Tribunal has held that:
Baron International Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 4 October, 2000
9. The case of Baron International Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara also notes the Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut decision in which the expression "such authority" has been interpreted as an officer of the same level as the one who had passed the adjudication order (in Baron International's case the point raised by the appellants was that the very Commissioner who passed the adjudication order must be the person filing the application, which objection was overruled by the bench.)
1