Committee authorization requirement under excise law: single Commissioner with dual charge cannot validly sanction departmental appeal.

A statutory Committee of two Commissioners must independently form the opinion that an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper and authorize the appeal; a single Commissioner holding dual charge cannot satisfy that mandate. The amended scheme of Section 35B(2) and Section 35(1B) was treated as deliberate and mandatory, so administrative exigency, a Board circular, or Rule 3(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not cure the defect. The invalid authorization rendered the departmental appeals incompetent and not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be validly authorized by one Commissioner holding charge of two Commissionerates in place of the statutorily required Committee of two Commissioners.

Analysis: The amended scheme of Section 35B(2) requires the Committee of Commissioners to form an opinion that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper and to direct filing of the appeal on its behalf. Section 35(1B) provides that the Committee must consist of two Commissioners. The statutory change was treated as deliberate and intended to secure deliberation by two distinct members; a single officer holding two charges cannot be treated as two Commissioners for this purpose. The Board circular could not override the amended statutory mandate, and administrative exigency could not dilute the requirement of a valid committee authorization. Rule 3(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 did not cure the defect in authorization.

Conclusion: The authorization was invalid, and the departmental appeals were not maintainable; the finding is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires a Committee of two Commissioners to form an opinion and authorize an appeal, authorization by a single Commissioner holding dual charge does not satisfy the statutory mandate and renders the appeal incompetent.

---