2013 (9) TMI 576 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal - Clearance from Committee of Commissioner of Customs - Mandate under section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for review Held that - Notes sheets filed by the Revenue were prepared by the Inspector and Superintendent and forwarded to the higher officers which in turn placed the file before the Committee of Commissioners. There is no independent recording of the fact that said Committee of Commisisoner s has gone through the impugned order and has arrived at a conclusion that the same need to be challenged before the Tribunal Relying upon the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CCE, Delhi-I v. Kundalia Industries reported in 2012 (8) TMI 789 - DELHI HIGH COURT and the judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of CCE, Delhi-III v. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (12) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA , it is held that mere appending of signatures on the opinion of lower officers, by itself, is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 35B. As such, we, by following the precedent decisions, hold that the Revenue s appeal is not valid Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal due to lack of authorization by Committee of Commissioners

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the maintainability of the appeal due to the lack of proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal was not maintainable as the review authorization was given by one Commissioner and not by the Committee of Commissioners. The tribunal examined the note sheets and found that the impugned order was not independently reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners as required by law. The tribunal referred to previous decisions by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing the necessity of meaningful consideration and independent evaluation by the Committee of Commissioners before filing an appeal.

The tribunal scrutinized the notes and records to ascertain whether the Committee of Commissioners had properly evaluated the case before authorizing the appeal. It was observed that the Committee of Commissioners did not conduct a meaningful consideration of the case, merely appending their signatures to the notes prepared by lower officers. The tribunal highlighted that the mere signing of notes without independent evaluation did not fulfill the legal requirement for authorization. The judgment referenced previous decisions to support the conclusion that the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners, rendering it not legally valid.

In conclusion, the tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of lack of proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners. The judgment emphasized the importance of independent evaluation and meaningful consideration by the Committee of Commissioners before filing an appeal, as mandated by the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal's decision was guided by legal precedents and established principles regarding the authorization process for appeals, ensuring adherence to procedural requirements for maintaining the integrity of the legal system.