2010 (1) TMI 596 - AT - Central Excise

No authorisation of appeal casual approach in seeking appeal remedy - there should not be empty formality followed to seek remedy of appeal nor the process of law prescribed to be followed is given go bye - Before appeal make your mind up whether the order appealed is legal and proper before exercising right of Appeal

Summary

Issues: Lack of authorization by the Committee for appealing the matter before the Tribunal.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolves around the requirement of authorization by the Committee before appealing a matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of Section 35(B)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates the Committee to apply its mind and draw a conclusion on the legality and propriety of the order appealed by the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that the purpose of this requirement is to prevent the filing of undesirable appeals and ensure that desirable appeals undergo scrutiny by the higher appellate authority. The decision-making process for filing an appeal must involve a thorough scrutiny by the Committee, reflected in a speaking order of authorization. The Tribunal stressed that seeking an appeal remedy should not be an empty formality, and the prescribed legal process must be followed diligently. The absence of authorization in the present appeal was deemed a legal infirmity, as the Committee of Commissioners had not issued a clear mandate concluding that the order appealed was neither legal nor proper based on the circumstances of the case, showcasing the application of their minds.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a specific case, emphasizing the essential preliminary decision on the legality and propriety of the appealed order before seeking an appeal remedy. Additionally, the judgment highlighted a similar stance taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a different case, where the Revenue's casual approach in seeking appeal remedies led to the dismissal of their appeal. The Hon'ble High Court expressed concern over the repeated legal infirmities in the appeals brought before it, leading to dismissals. In light of these precedents and the lack of authorization in the present appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal, not supported by the required authorization, had to be dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principles outlined in the Central Excise Act and the precedents set by the Hon'ble High Courts, emphasizing the importance of proper authorization before pursuing an appeal before the Tribunal.