2013 (12) TMI 389 - AT - Central Excise

Mandatory requirement of authorization not made Held that - The note sheet enclosed to the Misc. application clearly indicates that a note was placed before two Commissioners who were from Jaipur-I jurisdiction and Jaipur II jurisdiction - there was no Committee of Members either on 12.07.2010 or 14.07.2010 nor they had any views expressed on the note to record their decision - There is no empty formality to be followed in law when the law requires certain duties to be discharged by the Committee of Commissioners - A casual approach has been made by the Members of the Committee just to endorse their signature to the note of the Noting Officer who placed his note on 09.07.2010 - Such a practice is not acceptable to law as has been held in the case of CCE, Delhi-I vs. Kundaliya Industries 2012 (8) TMI 789 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI rejected Revenue's Misc. Application, stating that the appeal was dismissed earlier due to lack of proper authorization. The Tribunal found that the note placed before the Commissioners was signed without proper consideration, leading to the rejection of the application. The decision was based on the case law precedent and the requirement for the Committee of Commissioners to fulfill their duties properly.