9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 756 - AT - Central ExciseGenuineness of the review order - whether the Review Order passed under Section 35(2) of the CEA, 44 on 22.01.2007, for filing appeal against Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, was barred by limitation or otherwise - Held that - An unsigned order of the Board communicated by a junior official like the Superintendent cannot be held to be a valid review order passed, by the Board under the statute, specially when after availing so many chances and adjournments, the representative of the Revenue is not able to produce before us the original copy of the order signed by the Board Member nor the review file of the Board has been produced before us despite several directions. The relevant provision under Section 35E(3) at the material time was that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Following decision of CCE, Trichy vs. Vel Pharma 2012 (7) TMI 31 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal - Review Application dismissed on grounds of limitation - Determination of whether Review Order was barred by limitation 1. Appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal: The Revenue filed an Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.33/HAL/07 dated 17.09.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeal-I), Central Excise, Kolkata. The ld. AR for the Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide the issue on merits but dismissed the Review Application filed by the Department due to the Appeal being barred by limitation. On the other hand, the Respondent's Advocate, Shri K.P.Dey, contended that since the Review Application was filed after one year from the date of the original Order, the Appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal considered both arguments and examined the records to determine the validity of the Appeal. 2. Review Application dismissed on grounds of limitation: The crux of the matter revolved around the Review Order passed under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 22.01.2007, concerning the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2005. The Review Order was issued by the Committee of Chief Commissioners after the statutory period of one year from the date of the original Order. The Tribunal referred to the relevant provision under Section 35E(3) of the Act, which stipulated a time limit for passing review orders. Citing the case of Vel Pharma, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for review orders and highlighted the necessity of producing valid review orders signed by the Board Member. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the Appeal lacked merit and subsequently dismissed it. 3. Determination of whether Review Order was barred by limitation: The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent set in the case of Vel Pharma, which underscored the significance of complying with the statutory timeframe for passing review orders. The Tribunal noted the absence of a valid review order signed by the Board Member within the stipulated period. Despite arguments for condoning the delay in passing the review order, the Tribunal upheld the principle that review orders must be issued within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue based on the findings related to the limitation period for the Review Order, as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA delved into the intricacies of statutory timelines for review orders under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the importance of adherence to prescribed limits. The decision to dismiss the Appeal filed by the Revenue was based on the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the precedents established in similar cases.
|
