Appeals under Central Excise Act: Authority issuing order must file, not another officer. Upheld decision.

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling that an appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act can only be filed by an authority in the rank of the officer issuing the adjudication order. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to judicial discipline and precedent, rejecting the Revenue's appeal filed by an Assistant Commissioner instead of the Deputy Commissioner who passed the adjudication order. Citing High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that appeals must be filed by the adjudicating authority, not another officer. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Competency to file appeal under Section 35E(2) of C.Ex. Act by an authority other than the officer issuing the adjudication order.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the competency to file an appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act by an authority other than the officer issuing the adjudication order. The Revenue appealed against the findings of the lower appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The lower appellate authority held that the appeal by the department under Section 35E(2) can only be filed by an authority in the rank of the officer issuing the adjudication order. The Revenue argued citing precedents that Section 35E(4) covers both sub-sections (1) and (2), allowing 'the adjudication authority or the authorised officer' to file an appeal. However, the respondent's advocate referred to judgments by the High Courts of Delhi and Bombay, emphasizing that directions can only be given to the adjudicating authority and not any other officer.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, upheld the findings of the lower appellate authority. It was observed that the adjudication order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who then authorized the Assistant Commissioner to file the appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the High Court decisions cited by the respondent's advocate, stating that the Assistant Commissioner is not of the same rank as the Deputy Commissioner who passed the adjudication order. Therefore, as per Section 35E(2), the authorization to file the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized judicial discipline, stating that they are bound by the decisions of the High Courts, particularly the Bombay High Court's view that an appeal filed by an officer other than the adjudicating authority is not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision.

---