2004 (6) TMI 442 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal filed by an authority other than the adjudicating authority under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard a Revenue appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue revolved around the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) because it was filed by an authority other than the adjudicating authority, which was the Joint Commissioner in this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the appeal should have been directed by the Commissioner of Central Excise to the adjudicating authority as per Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act. However, the appeal was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue appeal challenged this rejection.

The grounds of appeal by the Revenue relied on the provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, arguing that an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) can be made by either the adjudicating authority or the authorized officer. They cited a Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Falcon Tyres Ltd., which supported the validity of an appeal filed by the authorized officer. On the other hand, the Respondents referred to a Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Lloyds Metals & Engineering Ltd. & Ors., which considered various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd., stating that an appeal filed by an authority other than the adjudicating authority is not maintainable.

Upon reviewing the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal noted that the direction to file an appeal under Section 35E by the Board or the Collector is meant for the adjudicating authority itself, not another authority. The Tribunal concluded that based on the Supreme Court's observations, the Revenue appeal lacked merit and deserved rejection. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue appeal.

In summary, the case highlighted the importance of complying with the statutory provisions regarding the authority entitled to file appeals under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act. The judgment emphasized the significance of ensuring that appeals are directed by the appropriate adjudicating authority to maintain the appeal's maintainability in law.