TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... option to avail of the scheme described in sub-rule (3) of Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944, for full and final discharge of its duty liability for the manufacture of final goods. The Commissioner of Central Excise had determined an amount of Rs. 2,12,550/- per month as the duty liability in respect of the said unit vide Annual Capacity Determination Order bearing C. No.IV/16/244/98-CX dt. 16/07/1998. The respondents were issued seven show-cause notices demanding duty under Rule 96 ZP(3) read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from January 1998 to March, 2000 demanding a total duty of Rs. 51,01,200/- , interest and penalty. 1 .2 The aforesaid sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioners of the Committee, nonetheless, the note sheet of the concerned file from which the aforesaid authorization was issued has been signed by Commissioner I and Commissioner III. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that during the concerned period the relevant portion of Section 35 relating to appeals to Tribunals made by the department were as follows: Section 35B (1B) (i) The Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963) may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute such Committees as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act. (ii) Every Committee constituted under clause (i) shall consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ELT 381 (Tri. Bang.)] has held as follows:- 9. On perusal of the provisions of Section 35B(2), we find that the authorization needs to be given by the Committee of Commissioners. Any authorization signed by the Commissioner cannot be called as proper authorization. Even if the wordings in the statute indicate "direct any Central Excise Officer authorized by him", To our mind there seems to be an error in drafting the said sub-section, as a committee comprises of more than one person and authorization to file an appeal can be given by them only. It is a fact that the decision to file an appeal against the impugned order is taken by a Committee of Commissioners. We find that the reliance placed by the learned counsel in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal [on its behalf] to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. [Provided that where the Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise differs in its opinion regarding the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it shall state the point or points on which it differs and make a reference to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Central Excise who shall, after considering the facts of the order, if is of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order." (underlining supplied) The present appeal, filed without valid author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd not the Committee of the Commissioners is not maintainable in terms of the Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the orders passed by both the authorities are not correct in law. The Authorisation Order signed by the Single Commissioner is not maintainable. The Authorisation has to be signed by a Committee of two Commissioners as held in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) and also in the case of Gupta Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The ratio of the finding given by the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Mukund Modhe (supra) is also applies to the facts of the case. We find, even on merit, the issue is decided finally in the assess....