2004 (6) TMI 460 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Revenue's appeal against rejection of review application.
2. Authorization for filing review petition under Section 35EZ of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Compliance with rules for filing appeal.
4. Remand of the case for re-examination.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the rejection of the review application by the Commissioner of Appeals. The case involved M/s. Kettella Tea Estate seeking exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. for substantial expansion. The Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the exemption from a specified date. However, the Commissioner directed a re-examination of the issue and filing a review petition, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Appeals, leading to this appeal.

2. The issue of authorization for filing the review petition under Section 35EZ of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was crucial. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong had authorized the Assistant Commissioner to file the review petition. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Berger Paints India Ltd., emphasizing that specific authorization by the Commissioner was not necessary as long as a general authorization was provided. The Tribunal found the authorization in this case to be in compliance with the rules.

3. Compliance with the rules for filing an appeal was a significant aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal cited previous judgments to establish that the Collector's authorization for filing an appeal did not require specific reasons or grounds to be recorded. It was deemed sufficient that the Collector formed an opinion about the appeal. In this case, the Commissioner's authorization to file the review petition was found to be in line with the legal requirements.

4. As a result of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner for re-examination. The direction was given to re-examine the issue of exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. in light of the Commissioner's directive. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the authorization provided by the Commissioner, leading to the decision to remand the case for further examination.