2012 (7) TMI 1049 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Proper authorization u/s 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing appeals.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI heard appeals against an order relating to the confirmation of demand of differential duty on two companies. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially accepted the appeal, setting aside penalties imposed on various entities. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals due to lack of proper authorization u/s 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Upon review, it was found that the authorization annexed to the memorandum of appeal was signed only by one Commissioner, not by all members of the Committee as required by law. The appellant's contention that the decision to file the appeal was taken by the Committee of Commissioners in file notings was examined by calling for relevant file notings. It was revealed that the Committee members had signed the note without a specific opinion on the matter's fit for appeal, indicating a lack of application of mind.

Analyzing Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal emphasized the requirement for the Committee of Commissioners to form an opinion before filing an appeal. In this case, the Committee did not collectively apply their minds to the facts, treating the matter as a bureaucratic file. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals were filed in violation of the Act's mandate, citing judgments from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that they were not maintainable due to the lack of proper authorization u/s 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The signed copy of the order was directed to be placed on each concerned file for reference.