2004 (2) TMI 602 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper authorization for filing appeal by Revenue under Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the main issue revolved around the proper authorization required for the Revenue to file an appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Consultant for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeals were not maintainable as the Commissioner had not provided the necessary authorization by using the specific terms "not legal and proper," as mandated by the law. The Consultant argued that the Commissioner had merely authorized the officer to file the appeal without proper consideration, citing a relevant Apex Court judgment in support of this contention.

The Tribunal directed the ld. SDR to review the note sheet orders to ascertain whether the essential requirement of using the terms "not legal or proper" in the authorization had been fulfilled. Upon examination, it was revealed that the Commissioner had not used the prescribed terms but instead stated that "the order is not correct." The Consultant reiterated that this lack of application of mind by the Commissioner and the absence of the required terms rendered the appeals non-maintainable, in accordance with the Apex Court precedent referenced.

After careful consideration of the submissions and the note sheet order, the Tribunal concluded that the authorization provided did not meet the prerequisite of being "not legal and proper" as required by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be rejected on the grounds of improper authorization, following the precedent set by the Apex Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the statutory requirements for authorization and dismissed the appeals on that basis.