2008 (12) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal by Department - Authorization by Review Committee - Held that - Page No. 2 annexed to the Misc. Application does not indicate any of the basic requirements of law to suggest whether there was a Committee and the Committee was constituted with certain number of Members and the Members are identifiable by their name and signature. That page also does not indicate whether there was a decision of the Committee to appeal against an order and whether that order was not legal and proper - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misc. application by Revenue regarding opinion of Review Committee not filed earlier.
2. Lack of indication of Committee decision in the filed documents.
3. Reliance on previous judgments by the respondent.
4. Dismissal of Revenue's Misc. Application.
5. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses a Misc. application by the Revenue concerning the Review Committee's opinion not being filed along with the appeal initially. The Revenue argued that the decision of the Committee was conveyed in the order sheet filed at page 2 & 3, justifying the admission of the appeal. However, upon scrutiny, it was found that the note on page 3, signed by the Commissioner, suggested that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be appealed against. The presence of an unnamed signature below Commissioner's signature raised doubts about the involvement of a Committee in the decision-making process, leading to skepticism regarding the legitimacy of the appeal.

2. The judgment further delves into the inadequacies of the documents submitted, specifically page 2 attached to the Misc. Application. It highlights that the page failed to meet the basic legal requirements by not indicating the existence of a Committee, its composition, or any decision taken by the Committee regarding the appeal's legality and propriety. This lack of clarity and essential information rendered the submitted documents insufficient to support the appeal.

3. The respondent's counsel relied on previous judgments, specifically citing cases such as CCE & C, Surat-I v. Shree Ganesh Dyeing & Printing Works and CCE & C, Surat-II v. Siddharth Petro Products Ltd. & Anr. from Gujarat. By referencing these cases, the respondent aimed to bolster their argument or position in the ongoing legal proceedings, emphasizing the relevance of precedent in legal arguments and decision-making processes.

4. Based on the identified legal infirmities and shortcomings in the Revenue's submission, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Misc. Application. The judgment reflects a strict adherence to legal procedures and requirements, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling all necessary criteria for the admissibility and consideration of appeals before the Tribunal.

5. Consequently, due to the dismissal of the Misc. Application, the Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This decision underscores the interconnected nature of legal proceedings and the significance of meeting all procedural and substantive requirements to ensure a fair and just adjudication of disputes. The judgment, delivered and pronounced in open court on 24-12-2008, signifies the finality of the decision regarding the appeal and the Misc. Application brought before the Tribunal.