Tribunal dismisses appeal on duty demand for paper manufacturing without payment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner of Central Excise's order upholding duty demand and cess on paper manufactured without payment of duty. Despite condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal found it not maintainable due to the lack of a joint sitting and collective opinion by the Committee of Commissioners as mandated by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. The appeal was based on divergent views of the Commissioners, leading to its dismissal. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to procedural requirements for filing appeals against such orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Central Excise upholding duty demand and cess on paper manufactured without payment of duty.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Review process by Committee of Commissioners.
4. Maintainability of appeal due to lack of joint sitting by Commissioners.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise upholding duty demand and cess on paper manufactured without payment of duty for captive consumption. The Order-in-Appeal vacated the demand of interest, and the appeal sought restoration of the original order.

2. A delay of 85 days in filing the appeal was accompanied by a condonation petition. The delay was attributed to administrative issues related to the review process by a Committee of Commissioners, leading to the delay in communicating the decision to file the appeal.

3. The review process by the Committee of Commissioners, as required by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, was questioned. The file did not contain a joint review order by the Committee, with Commissioners expressing differing opinions on different dates and locations. The lack of a joint sitting and forming a collective opinion by the Committee was highlighted.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, condoned the delay in filing the appeal but found the appeal itself not maintainable. Section 35B(2) mandates a joint sitting and collective opinion by the Committee of Commissioners for deciding on the legality of the order under review. Since the Commissioners had divergent views and the appeal was filed based on a suggestion from one Commissioner despite his own contrary opinion, the appeal was deemed not validly filed and was dismissed.

This judgment emphasizes the procedural requirements for filing appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, highlighting the importance of a collective opinion by the Committee of Commissioners as per the statutory provisions.

---