Judgment :- 1. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is filed by the Revenue, against the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Bangalore. 2. The appeal purporting to be one to examine the following questions of law as indicated in the memorandum of appeal: “20. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in re-interpreting the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1994, thereby defeating the very intent and purpose of the said provision. 21. Whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the Appeal by relying upon the decision in the case of M/s Transformer and Electricals Kerala Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin reported in 2008(225) ELT 228 (Tri-Bang), when the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad reported in 2008 (223) ELT 161 (Bom), directed the Tribunal to consider the effect of the purchase order to decide the question as to whether the Department was entitled to charge interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.” 3. Only for the purpose of getting or raising the revenue by an astronomical sum of Rs. 55,625/-for the Central Government, said to be the interest amount leviable in terms of Section 11AB of the Act, on the premise that the assessee a manufacturer of certain machine tools while had cleared certain goods on raising invoices in the name of the customer, initially during the period between May 2003 and August 2003 had raised supplemental invoices showing the revised price for the goods cleared while it had paid the duty for the difference in price, but had not paid interest for the delayed period. The department though was not successful before adjudicating authority and the Tribunal, nevertheless doggedly and without much understanding of the provisions of law and circumstances has been pursuing this appeal under Section 35G of the Act. 4. Appearing for the appellant the submission of Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel is that the respondent should have paid interest on the differential duty from the date of original invoice to the date of supplementary invoice as the price indicated in the supplementary invoice dates back to the original date of clearance and the duty was subsequently paid. Therefore, the assess should pay interest on differential duty from original date of clearance till the date of supplemental invoice in terms of Section 11AB. In the circumstances the Revenue has been pursuing the matter up to this Court to vindicate the stand of the Revenue. 5. While the contention appears to be attractive, it only flatters to deceive as we find that the present appeal has not legs to stand and is without any foundation as in the very first instance the appeal before the first Appellate Authority under Section 35 of the Act was not a tenable appeal in as much as the Revenue could not have invoked the provisions of Section 35 assuming that the legal position as per one possible interpretation of Section 11AB of the Act is as contended by the learned CGSC. 6. The Section 35G, in our considered opinion, is available only to the aggrieved assessee and not to the Revenue. 7. However, Sri Neeralgi wants us to understand the words ‘any aggrieved person’ to include the revenue also. In our opinion such understanding is not possible. The initial appeal itself was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and with the Commissioner not having exercised his powers under sub-section (2) of Section 35E reading as under: “35E, Powers of Board of Commissioner of Central Excise to pass certain orders.- .(1) …………………………………………………………………………… .(2) The Commissioner of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority or any Central Excise Officer subordinate to him to apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise in his order.” The Section 35 appeal in the first instance itself was not tenable. On the other hand, the above provision of Section 35E of the Act provides the remedy for the present situation. 8. Therefore we have no other opinion but to dismiss the present appeal without going into other contentions urged by Sri Neeralgi. The appeal is dismissed.