2009 (5) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of three appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of proper authorization and verification process.

Analysis:
1. Authorization for Appeal: The Revenue filed an appeal against the rejection of three appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Committee of Commissioners authorized the Superintendent of Central Excise (Appeals) to file the appeal on their behalf. However, there was a crucial omission in the authorization process as there was no date mentioned on the authorization. The statement of facts and grounds of appeal were signed by different Commissioners, but the verification of facts was done by a Superintendent. This discrepancy raised concerns as the verification of appeal contents should be done by the person filing the appeal, which was not the case here.

2. Verification Process: Another issue highlighted was the discrepancy in the verification process. The EA-3 form was signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise but verified by the Commissioners of Central Excise. This inconsistency in the verification process further added to the procedural irregularities in filing the appeal. During the hearing, the Revenue was asked to produce the original record to ascertain the date of signing by the Committee of Commissioners. However, the absence of a clear date even in the office records led to the conclusion that the appeal was not filed in accordance with the CEGAT Procedure Rules.

3. Dismissal of Appeal: Due to the lack of proper authorization and verification processes as per the procedural rules, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and subsequently dismissed. The failure to adhere to the prescribed procedures in filing the appeal rendered it invalid. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of in light of the dismissal of the main appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, emphasizing the finality of the decision regarding the appeal's dismissal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata centered on procedural irregularities in the authorization and verification processes of filing the appeal, leading to its dismissal for not being maintainable. The importance of strict adherence to procedural rules and requirements in legal proceedings was underscored through this decision, highlighting the significance of proper documentation and verification in legal actions before the tribunal.