H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. The learned counsel for M/s. Tinplate Co., Mr. Mookherjee, said that this appeal is a non-existent one, because when the order of the Collector (Appeals) was passed in 1981, there was no provision for appeal to this Tribunal in line with Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The department filed the appeal in January, 1983 against the order, even though .there was no provision for such appeal when the order was passed by the Collector (Appeals). Therefore, no appeal lies under the present law. The Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982 would not rescue the present appeal. He said that revision could have been made, but this was not made in time.

2. The learned SDR, Mrs. Zutshi on behalf of the department agreed with the submissions made by Mr. Mookherjee.

3. Both, however, are mistaken. On the day that the Tribunal began to operate on 11-10-1982, the right of appeal to it was conferred on all aggrieved persons against orders passed in the past. It is irrelevant to say that when the order was passed, the right of appeal was not available as this Tribunal had not been set up. If we take this argumen