2014 (12) TMI 1267 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - appeals have been filed without obtaining proper authorization u/s 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - On going through the authorization I find that the Committee of Commissioners consist of two Commissioners and this authorization has been signed by only one Commissioner. Therefore, the authorization signed by the Commissioners is defective - appeals dismissed as defective and non-maintainable.

Summary

Issues: Authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved a challenge against the order of the ld. Commissioner (A). The respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeals were filed without proper authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore should be dismissed as non-maintainable. The ld. AR argued that although the Committee of Commissioners had signed the note sheet on two different dates, the appeals should be admitted. Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, it was found that the authorization had been signed by only one Commissioner, rendering it defective. The authorization was related to an appeal filed by M/s. A.T.V. Project (I) Ltd. against an Order-in-Original passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow. The Committee's opinion was that the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not proper and legal, leading to the authorization for filing an appeal on behalf of the Committee. However, as the authorization was signed by only one Commissioner instead of the required two, the appeals were deemed defective and non-maintainable before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.