TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eptember 2005 resulting in damage of stock in process, finished goods and capital goods. The said fire accident was informed by the respondent to the department and they also lodged an FIR with the concerned police station. The fire authorities arrived and controlled the fire. The respondent on 29-9-05, intimated that approximate damage to the plant and machinery, finished goods, stock in process. It was submitted by the respondent that there was a stock of 1500 Kg of CMIC Chloride which was lying on the shop floor having been received back for reprocessing which was also destroyed in fire. The department sought for the reversal of credit of duty involved in the said inputs, intermediate goods and capital goods destroyed in fire accident. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he outset, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that he has got a preliminary objection to the authorization to file an appeal, which has been given, is incorrect and is signed by only one Commissioner, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Restile Ceramics Ltd. - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 245 (Tri.-Bang.). Responding to the preliminary objection, the learned SDR submitted that the preliminary objection is incorrect, as the note sheet produced by the revenue on the review of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has signatures of both the Commissioner who reviewed the order. It is her submission that the authorizat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which were lost were in the storage areas and as such they cannot be considered as having been put to use by the respondent. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the inputs that were destroyed within the factory premises were issued for the purpose of production and that the goods which were received back by the respondents from their supplier were issued for further processing as they were found to be of sub-standard quality. It is his submission that today the whole issue is settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries v. CCE, Indore - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 336 (Tri.-LB). 7. We have considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT, Bangalore against the said order. End:- Annexure - A. Sd/- (Dr. S.L.MEENA) COMMISSIONER 8. It can be noticed from the above reproduced authorization that the authorization is signed by only one Commissioner. The Provisions of Section 35B(2) reads as under: "The Commissioner of Central Excise may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorized by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorizer officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order." (emphas....