- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenue as the revenue's appeal has been dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata,2009 245 ELT 555(Tri)] on the ground that Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008 is not maintainable because of the reason that the Review Order dated 12-6-2008, authorizing for filing of the said appeal, has not been signed by the Chief Commissioner appointed by Gazette Notification as required under the law. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon the orders of the Tribunal passed in the cases of CCE, Kolkata-III & IV v. Naffar Chandra Jute Mills & Others, dated,2008 230 ELT 244 (Tri. - Kol.)], CCE, Cus. & ST, Bhubaneshwar-II v. Ores India Ltd., 2008 12 STR 513 (Tri. - Kol.)] and Tribunal's order passed in CCE, Dibrugarh v. Kothari Products Ltd. & Others dated 26-9-2008 [(Tri. - Kol.)] as well as in the case of CCE, Bhubaneshwar-II v. Mahanadi Coalfields dated 16-10-2008 [(Tri. - Kol.)]. However, the view taken by the Tribunal in above cases has been reversed by the Division Bench of this Court (by us) in Tax Appeal No. 2 of 2009, Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. T.R.F. Limited vide judgment dated 27-7-2012.
(2.) In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of M/s. T.R.F. Limited , appeal of the revenue being Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2009 is allowed and the impugned order dismissing Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal of the revenue in accordance with law on merits.
(3.) Another Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenue in view of the fact that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the demand raised by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 6,89,516/-.;