2002 (2) TMI 3 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal allows appeal in Navin Chemical Enterprises case; Commissioner (Appeals) lacked authority.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal in the case of M/s. Navin Chemical Enterprises. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to lack ... Absence of power of review under Section 84 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 - power of revision versus power to direct filing of appeal by subordinate - validity of appeal filed by subordinate on direction of superior - nullity of proceedings/appeal resulting from exercise of non-existent power - Goods Transport Operators service - levy of service taxAbsence of power of review under Section 84 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 - validity of appeal filed by subordinate on direction of superior - nullity of proceedings/appeal resulting from exercise of non-existent power - Whether the Commissioner could review or direct the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal against an order dropping demand, and whether the appeal filed and the resulting order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are valid. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that Section 84 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 does not vest in the Commissioner a power to review an order passed by his subordinate and to direct the subordinate to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case the Commissioner, instead of exercising any power of revision permitted by law, purported to review the Deputy Commissioner's order and directed filing of an appeal. Because no statutory power authorised such review or direction, the appeal instituted by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to that direction and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) thereon are void. The Tribunal therefore treated the departmental appeal and the impugned appellate order as a nullity and allowed the stay petition and appeal, observing that any consequential benefit to the appellant shall follow in accordance with law. [Paras 4, 5]Commissioner's act of directing the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal amounted to exercise of a non-existent review power under Section 84; the appeal filed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are nullities, and the stay petition and appeal are allowed with consequential benefits admissible in law.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had no power under Section 84 to review the Deputy Commissioner's order or to direct filing of an appeal; the departmental appeal so instituted and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order are nullities, and the stay petition and appeal were allowed with consequential relief as per law. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of M/s. Navin Chemical Enterprises, allowed the appeal as the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to review the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and direct the filing of an appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was considered a nullity under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Stay Petition and Appeal were allowed, and consequential benefits were to be granted to the appellant(s) according to the law.