COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, ROHTAK Vs. ELEGANT ENTERPRISES, SONEPAT; JINDAL ALLOYS, HISSAR; VISHAL METAL CASTINGS; JINDAL ELECTRO CASTING, HISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are informed that the appeals are against a common order and are identical in all respects. We, therefore, dispose of all the appeals by this common order and judgment.

(2.) These appeals have been filed against the order of the CESTAT dismissing the appellants' appeals on the ground that the appellants had not complied with the provisions of Section 35B(2) of The Central Excise Act, 1944. The said Section reads thus:-

(3.) It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III (Gurgaon) vs. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd, 2010 249 ELT 24 that the compliance with the Section is necessary and that in the event of the failure to comply with the same, no appeal is deemed to have been instituted in the eyes of law. The Division Bench, in that case, dealt with Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is para materia to Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with which we are concerned.