2014 (4) TMI 570 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue appeal dismissed due to lack of proper authorization by Committee of Commissioners.

The Tribunal found the appeal filed by the Revenue to be not maintainable due to lack of proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners. The ... Maintainability of appeal - Compliance with Section 35B - Held that:- notes were prepared by the Inspector and Superintendent and forwarded to the higher officers which in turn placed the file before the Committee of Commissioners. There is no independent recording of the fact that said Committee of Commisisoner’s has gone through the impugned order and has arrived at a conclusion that the same need to be challenged before the Tribunal. As held by the High Court in the above referred matters, mere appending of signatures on the opinion of lower officers, by itself, is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 35B - Following decision of CCE Noida vs. V S Exim Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeal due to lack of proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue due to the lack of proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable as the review authorization was given by one Commissioner and not by the Committee of Commissioners. The Tribunal examined the notesheets and found that the impugned order was examined by lower officers, but there was no meaningful consideration by the Committee of Commissioners. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions by the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court emphasizing the need for the Committee to independently apply their minds before filing an appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the mere appending of signatures by the Committee without proper evaluation did not comply with the legal requirements, rendering the appeal not maintainable.The judgment further delves into specific instances where the Committee of Commissioners failed to provide an independent opinion before filing the appeal. In one case, the file only contained notes suggesting that the appeal should be filed without any decision by the Committee. The absence of an opinion expressed by the Committee of Commissioners led the Court to determine that the appeal was not instituted as per the provisions of the relevant Act. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the Committee of Commissioners forming an opinion based on a thorough examination of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before filing an appeal, as mandated by the law.Moreover, the Tribunal reiterated that the mere signing of notes prepared by lower officers and forwarded to the higher authorities, without independent consideration by the Committee of Commissioners, did not meet the legal requirements for filing an appeal. The judgment emphasized the need for a meaningful consideration by the Committee, reflecting their decision or opinion, rather than just appending signatures. By following the precedents set by the High Courts in similar cases, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of lack of proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners. The judgment underscores the significance of complying with the procedural requirements, specifically regarding the authorization process for filing appeals in such matters.