2012 (9) TMI 778 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - whether they have taken a decision forming a Committee, while law requires that the Committee of the Commissioners should decide maintainability of the appeal disclosing reasons why order of appeal is neither legal nor proper Held that - Appeals were dismissed vide order dated 2-2-2009 (A.4). In any case once the fundamental element of formation of opinion of filing the appeal is missing then no appeal is deemed to be instituted in the eyes of law - Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal based on the formation of a Committee by the Commissioners.
2. Lack of proper authorization for the appeal by the Revenue.
3. Previous instances of Revenue losing appeals due to procedural lapses.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue against the first appellate order. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the Committee of the Commissioners deciding on the appeal's maintainability, as required by law. The document presented as authorization lacked clarity on whether a decision was made by the Committee, rendering the appeal legally questionable. The Tribunal emphasized that without a proper decision and reasons for challenging the first appellate order, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and locus standi. The judgment referenced a previous case to underscore the significance of adhering to procedural requirements for appeal.

2. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's casual behavior in seeking appeal remedies without fulfilling procedural obligations. The judgment referenced a case where the Hon'ble High Court expressed concern over such lapses by the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that courts do not prefer to make revenue non-suiter but emphasized that non-maintainability of an appeal cannot be overlooked. The judgment quoted a specific paragraph from a previous case to illustrate the consequences of procedural lapses on the appeal's validity.

3. The Tribunal noted that this was not the first instance where the Revenue had lost appeals due to procedural lapses. Citing a previous case where the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for similar reasons, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to maintain the validity of appeals. Considering the repeated instances of procedural shortcomings leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the current appeal, reiterating the significance of compliance with legal procedures for appeal processes.

This detailed analysis of the judgment underscores the Tribunal's emphasis on procedural compliance, the formation of a Committee for appeal maintainability, and the consequences of failing to meet legal requirements for authorization and appeal validity.