CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal Vide Order No. C -I/2632/WZB/2001 dt. 31.8.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants. This application is for rectification of a mistake claimed to exist on the face of this order.

(2.) THE refund claim filed by the present applicants was allowed and refund was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector. An application was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which led to the reversal of the lower order made.

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal Shri P.K. Viswanathan appearing for the applicant had claimed that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the statutory period. The Tribunal observed that during the material period the provisions allowed a period of one year during which the appeal could be filed and held that the claim made by Shri P.K. Viswanathan had no merit. In the present application it is submitted that there was an error in this observation. It is submitted that the procedure under the said Section 35E has two parts. The first is the review of the order and the directions to the adjudicating officer to make an application before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the second is the period given to the Assistant Commissioner to file the application. It is submitted that it terms of Section 35E(4) a period of three months was given to the Assistant Commissioner to file the appeal. However in the present case the appeal was filed after five months from the date of communication of the Collector's decision in terms of Section 35 E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and thus the application was barred by limitation. I have considered the submissions. The relevant provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 35E are reproduced below: -