2013 (6) TMI 60 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal by revenue - authorization u/s 35B to avoid filing of frivolous appeals and unnecessary appeals - Whether it was correct and proper for the CESTAT to dismiss revenue appeal on presumption that since the members of the Committee of Commissioners have singed the note put up by subordinate officers for review of the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 20, 21 & 22-CE/APPL/KNP/2009 dated 10-2-2009 in a mechanical manner without any specific findings and signed Review Order on different dates, therefore, such review order also not get sanction in the eye of law?

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the dismissal of revenue appeal by CESTAT based on the authorization process.
2. Perversity of the findings in the impugned final order by the Tribunal.
3. Validity of the Review Order dated 8-5-2009 as an authorization to file appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The first issue revolves around the validity of the dismissal of the revenue appeal by CESTAT based on the authorization process. The counsel for the Central Excise Department argued that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by examining the validity of the authorization process, which it did not possess. The High Court held that the Tribunal's observation regarding the Commissioners not taking the decision on the same day did not invalidate the authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the absence of statutory rules mandating the Commissioners to sit together simultaneously did not render the decision invalid unless it was proven that the decision lacked proper consideration. The judgment cited precedents to support the argument that the appeal had merits and should not have been dismissed solely based on procedural grounds.

Issue 2: Moving on to the perversity of the findings in the impugned final order by the Tribunal, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal and the subsequent recall application. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to delve into the validity of the authorization process, as it was beyond its purview. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's actions amounted to a gross error of jurisdiction and ordered that the matter be remanded for a decision on merits in accordance with the law.

Issue 3: Lastly, the validity of the Review Order dated 8-5-2009 as an authorization to file an appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was questioned. The High Court did not delve into this issue explicitly in the provided text but admitted the appeal for further proceedings, indicating that this aspect would likely be addressed during the subsequent hearings. The affidavit of service was filed, and the matter was scheduled for a hearing in November 2012 due to the absence of the respondent during the initial proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily focused on the jurisdictional boundaries of the Tribunal, emphasizing that procedural irregularities should not overshadow the merits of an appeal. The Court's decision to set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remand the matter for a decision on merits underscores the importance of upholding legal procedures while ensuring substantive justice.