Unauthorized Appeals Under Customs Law Not Maintainable Without Committee Authorization

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata held that appeals filed under Customs and Central Excise Law without valid authorization from a Committee of two Commissioners are not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized the legislative intent behind the 2005 amendment to involve multiple viewpoints in the authorization process. A separate judgment in Mumbai suggesting a single Commissioner with additional charge could constitute a reviewing committee was rejected by the Kolkata Tribunal. The decision underscores the necessity of adhering to the amended provisions to ensure the legality of appeals filed by the Department.

---

---

Issues involved:
The validity of authorisation to file appeals u/s Customs and Central Excise Law by one Commissioner instead of a Committee of two Commissioners.

Summary:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dealt with three appeals filed by the Department, focusing on the preliminary question of the maintainability of these appeals due to the authorisation process. The relevant provisions of the Customs and Central Excise Law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2005, require a Committee of two Commissioners to authorise filing such appeals. The Tribunal analyzed the legal position and concluded that one Commissioner cannot constitute a Committee of Commissioners, as it necessitates two individuals. The judgment emphasized that the legislative change in 2005 aimed to involve multiple viewpoints and share responsibilities. Therefore, appeals filed without valid authorisation from a Committee of two different individual Commissioners were deemed not maintainable and dismissed. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the amended provisions to ensure the legality and propriety of appeals filed by the Department.

In a separate judgment by a Single Member Bench in Mumbai, a different interpretation was presented, suggesting that a Commissioner holding additional charge of another equivalent post could constitute a reviewing committee by themselves. However, the Appellate Tribunal in Kolkata disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the requirement of a Committee of two Commissioners as per the amended provisions post-2005. The Tribunal found the reasoning in the Mumbai decision lacking in addressing the legal position before and after the 2005 Amendment, leading to the dismissal of the appeals based on the need for proper authorisation from a Committee of two Commissioners.

---