Tribunal affirms jurisdiction over appeals on revisionary orders post 19.8.2009 under old Section 84

M/s TA PAI MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE & Others Versus CCE. MANGALORE

M/s TA PAI MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE & Others Versus CCE. MANGALORE - [2012] 37 STT 407 (BANG - CESTAT), 2013 (29) S.T.R. 577 (Tri. - Bang.) , [2014] 67 VST ... Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain appeals against revisionary orders passed by Commissioners after 19.8.2009.
2. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
3. Legislative intent behind the amendments to Sections 84 and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain appeals against revisionary orders passed by Commissioners after 19.8.2009:
The primary issue is whether the CESTAT has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against revisionary orders passed by Commissioners of Central Excise after 19.8.2009 under the erstwhile Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The department argued that such appeals are not maintainable as the amendments to Section 86, effective from 19.8.2009, removed the provision for appeals against orders passed under Section 84. The appellants contended that their right to appeal was vested on the date of the issuance of the show-cause notice under the old Section 84, and this right continued despite the amendments.

2. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The appellants argued that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deals with the effect of repeal, protected their right to appeal. They asserted that the right of appeal vested in them when the show-cause notices were issued, and this right could not be taken away by the subsequent amendments unless expressly stated. The department countered that Section 6 did not apply as the right to appeal had not vested before the amendments took effect.

3. Legislative intent behind the amendments to Sections 84 and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The tribunal examined the legislative intent behind the amendments to Sections 84 and 86. The amendments replaced the revisionary jurisdiction of the Commissioner with an appellate remedy to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Explanation to the new Section 84 indicated that orders passed by adjudicating officers before 19.8.2009 should continue to be dealt with by the Commissioner under the old Section 84. The tribunal interpreted this as an indication that the legislature did not intend to take away the right of appeal against such orders.

Findings:

1. Right of Appeal as a Substantive Right:
- The tribunal held that the right of appeal is a substantive right that accrues on the date of the institution of the proceedings (i.e., the date of issuance of the show-cause notice). This right continues through the entire course of the proceedings and is governed by the law as it stood on the date of institution.

2. Application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act:
- The tribunal found that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to the present case. The omission of "Section 84" from Section 86 did not affect the right of appeal that had already accrued under the old Section 86. The tribunal noted that there was no legislative intent to destroy the vested right of appeal, as evidenced by the Explanation to the new Section 84.

3. Legislative Intent and Continuity of Proceedings:
- The tribunal concluded that the legislative intent, as manifested in the Explanation to the new Section 84, was to continue the revisionary proceedings under the old Section 84. Consequently, the right of appeal under the old Section 86 remained intact for orders passed in such proceedings.

Conclusion:
The tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against the revisionary orders passed by the Commissioners after 19.8.2009 under the old Section 84. The appeals were deemed maintainable, and the applications were listed for disposal on merits. The tribunal's decision was based on the substantive right of appeal, the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and the legislative intent behind the amendments.