2012 (10) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - 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 Held that - Aforesaid premise is factually incorrect as the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 2-2-2009 - 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 should not file appeals with scanty regard to law. Certainly, Revenue may be in jeopardy if its appeal is dismissed at maintainability stage. But casual approach in seeking remedy causes peril to Revenue - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Lack of proper decision-making process for filing appeals by Revenue, non-disclosure of reasons for filing appeals, casual approach of Revenue in legal matters.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the main issue revolved around the lack of a proper decision-making process followed by the Revenue for filing appeals. The Review Order in question did not disclose whether a Committee was formed or if it met to take the required decision as mandated by law. The Tribunal noted a casual approach by the Revenue in legal matters, with orders being undated and lacking proper reasoning for filing appeals. The judgment referenced a case from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana to highlight the importance of fulfilling mandatory requirements of law before filing appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue to guide its officers to form proper Committees and make decisions in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal further discussed the argument presented by the Learned DR, who opposed the observations regarding the Revenue's approach. The DR contended that the Revenue had a strong case concerning Cenvat credit availed by the respondent on structural items. However, the Tribunal clarified that even if the Revenue had a good case, if an appeal is not maintainable, it cannot assist the Revenue. The judgment stressed that appeals should not be filed with scanty regard to the law, as it may lead to peril for the Revenue if appeals are dismissed at the maintainability stage. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to communicate the order to the CBEC to guide field formations in such matters.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that despite not intending to non-suit the Revenue, its approach had rendered it remediless due to the casual manner in which appeals were pursued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and a miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent was also dismissed in light of the appeal's dismissal. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and forming proper Committees to make informed decisions, emphasizing the significance of following due process in legal matters to avoid jeopardizing the Revenue's position.