2012 (7) TMI 31 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner's Appeals Dismissed for Procedural Errors

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY Versus M/s VEL PHARMA & Others

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli, as they were found not maintainable due to the absence of ... Genuineness of the review order - Held that:- An unsigned order of the Board communicated by a junior official like the Superintendent cannot be held to be a valid review order passed by the Board under the statute, specially when after availing many chances and adjournments, the representative of the Revenue is not able to produce the original copy of the order signed by the Board Member nor the review file of the Board despite several directions - in the absence of any valid review order produced the applications filed before the Tribunal are not maintainable as appeals against the impugned Order-in-Original. Issues:1. Maintainability of appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli.2. Validity of the Board's review order and its communication to the Commissioner.3. Adverse inference due to the inability of the Department to produce the original review order.4. Authority to communicate statutory orders by the Board.5. Condonation of delay in passing review order.6. Missing review file and unsigned review order.7. Dismissal of applications filed by the Department.Issue 1: The Tribunal deliberated on the maintainability of the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli, challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner. The appeals were based on a Board's Review Order directing the Commissioner to apply to the Tribunal for determination of specific points arising from the original order.Issue 2: The Tribunal examined the validity of the Board's review order and its communication to the Commissioner within the statutory period. The respondents raised concerns about the genuineness of the review order, highlighting discrepancies in the date of issuance and the lack of a signed copy by the Board Member, casting doubt on its authenticity.Issue 3: Adverse inference was drawn against the Department due to its failure to produce the original review order despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of a valid review order passed within the prescribed period, as mandated by the Central Excise Act, to maintain the integrity of the review process.Issue 4: The authority to communicate statutory orders by the Board was questioned, emphasizing that only designated officials under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, such as the Secretary or Under Secretary, are authorized to communicate such orders. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of official signatures on statutory orders to ensure their validity.Issue 5: The Tribunal considered the plea for condonation of delay in passing the review order, citing a precedent involving a subsequent amendment to Section 35E. However, the Tribunal clarified that the cases in question fell under the original provision, which strictly prohibited the issuance of a review order beyond one year from the original decision.Issue 6: The Tribunal expressed concern over the missing review file and the unsigned review order, emphasizing the necessity of producing valid documentation to support the appeals. Despite repeated requests and adjournments, the Department failed to provide conclusive evidence of a legally valid review order.Issue 7: Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all six applications filed by the Department, ruling that the appeals were not maintainable due to the lack of a valid review order and the failure to produce essential documentation. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance and the need for accurate record-keeping to uphold the integrity of the review process.