2012 (9) TMI 818 - AT - Central Excise

Review Order alleged that Review Order is also undated by one of the Commissioner not disclosing whether he has at any point of time participated in the decision making process Held that - Cases after cases of Revenue is coming up with casual approach to law and without disclosing the reason why the order-in-appeal neither legal nor proper - Revenue has proceeded on the premises that on 2-2-2009 it has been given time to cure the defect by 9-2-2009 as the next date fixed is 18-2-2009. The aforesaid premise is factually incorrect as the 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 appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Review order lacking disclosure of committee decision and date.
2. Casual approach of Revenue in filing appeals without fulfilling legal requirements.
3. Dismissal of appeal and related miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the review order not meeting legal requirements. It points out that the review order did not disclose whether a committee was involved in the decision-making process as mandated by law. Additionally, the order was undated, raising questions about the Commissioner's participation in the decision-making. The judgment highlights the Revenue's casual approach to legal procedures, citing a case from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana as an example. Ultimately, the Tribunal finds the Revenue's appeal not maintainable due to these deficiencies in the review order.

2. The judgment delves into the casual approach of the Revenue in filing appeals without meeting mandatory legal requirements. It emphasizes that the Revenue's practice of filing appeals without disclosing reasons or obtaining appropriate committee orders is not acceptable. By citing a specific case from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the judgment illustrates how procedural lapses can render appeals without merit. Despite not intending to non-suit the Revenue for procedural lapses, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal due to the repeated deficiencies in the filing process. Consequently, a miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent is also dismissed in light of the appeal dismissal.

3. In the final part of the judgment, it is explicitly stated that the Revenue's appeal is dismissed due to its careless approach, rendering it not maintainable. As a result of the appeal dismissal, the miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent is also dismissed. The judgment concludes by noting that the decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing a formal closure to the legal proceedings.