AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication for condonation of delay. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of CCE & ST, Bhubneshwar v. Ballarpur Industries Limited - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 498 (Ori.), to submit that this defect is incurable. Ld. Counsel also relied on sub-section 86(3) of Finance Act, 1994 to assert that the appeal should have been filed within four months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed was received by the Committee of Commissioners. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST, Delhi v. SK E&C India Pvt. Limited - 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 39 (Tri.-Chan.). He also relied on Rule 8 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to assert that the application should have been signed by a person authorized by Committee of Commissioners who had signed the appeal. 2. Ld. AR for the Revenue pointed out that in this case, the Committee of Commissioners had authorized the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Bhavnagar to file the appeal for determination of certain issue arising out of impugned order. The impugned order was received by the Commissioner on 28-11-2014 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Revenue in time. 4. The Assistant Registrar, CESTAT issued a defect memo on 26-3-2015 to appellant-Revenue asking them to cure the defect by filing two more Service Tax appeals as the impugned order dealt with three different orders-in-original. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner had filed two more appeals on 17-4-2015 i.e. before the time limit prescribed by the Assistant Registrar. In these circumstances, we find that there is no delay in filing of appeals. The appeal was filed in time however removal of defect was done after the same was pointed out by the Assistant Registrar. The defect pointed out by the Assistant Registrar was of technical nature in so much as the impugned order disposed of three different orders-in-original and therefore, technically there was requirement of three different appeals against the same impugned order, and Revenue had filed one consolidated appeal. 5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Bench on 17-12-2018, it was prima facie of the view that there was delay in filing two appeals and therefore, applications for condonation of delay were asked. The present applications for condonation have been filed in respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of filing the same in the impugned order, it cannot be said that the said authorisation has been filed in the impugned appeal while appeal was preferred. Thus, on materials on record, authorization neither finds place in the impugned order nor in the order passed in other two appeals." It is seen from the above Para that the said case related to filing of appeal with defective authorization. In the instant case, the appeal has been filed with correct authorization and the defect only related to condonation of delay application is under consideration. In this regard, Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is relevant which reads as under:- Section 35B in the Central Excise Act, 1944 35B. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. - (1) ....... ....... (2) The Collector of Central Excise may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or the Collector (Appeals) under section 35A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the provisions of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Committee of Commissioners authorised the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Division-Ill, Gurgaon. Rule 8 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 reads as under :- "RULE 8. Contents of a memorandum of appeal. - (1) and (2) ....... (3) Every memorandum of appeal/application/cross-objection shall be signed and verified by the appellant/applicant/respondent of the Principal Officer duty authorised to sign Memorandum of Appeal/ Application/Cross-objection. The appellant/applicant/respondent or the Consultant or Advocate retained by them shall certify as true the documents produced before the Tribunal." As per the said Rule, the person who has signed the appeal is required to sign the applications. In the instant case, the applications for condonation of delay are required to be signed by the person who is authorised to file the appeals before this Tribunal. I find that the applications for condonation of delay have not been signed by an authorised officer. The said issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of CC (Imports), Chennai v. Archean G....