2007 (1) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Validity of authorization filed with the appeal, competence of officer signing for the committee, condonation of delay in filing fresh authorization.

In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the authorization originally filed with the appeal was not valid as the same officer had signed as two Members of the Committee, contending that a Committee should consist of more than one person. On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative explained that the Committee comprised two Commissionerates, Indore and Bhopal, and since the officer held charge of both, he was competent to sign for the committee. It was further mentioned that a fresh authorization was filed after another Commissioner joined at Bhopal. The Tribunal acknowledged the merit in the respondent's submission that having the same officer sign as two members of the committee goes against the principle of a committee being constituted of more than one person. However, the appeal did not become non-maintainable as a fresh authorization was filed by the Revenue, and the delay was condonable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application for condonation of delay and admitted the appeal.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issues of the validity of the authorization filed with the appeal, the competence of the officer signing for the committee, and the condonation of delay in filing a fresh authorization. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and concluded that while having the same officer sign as two members of the committee was against the principle of a committee being constituted of more than one person, the appeal remained maintainable due to the filing of a fresh authorization by the Revenue. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application for condonation of delay and admitted the appeal.