2015 (1) TMI 1132 - AT - Central Excise

Authorized person for filing an appeal - CENVAT Credit - Penalty u/s 11AC read with Rule 15 - Held that - Applicant had authorized Shri Naren Banerjee for signing all documents and also for appearing before the Excise Authorities in all Central Excise matters - No merit in the submission of the Revenue that specific authorization has to be given for filing the appeal. In my opinion , even the General Authorization in favour of an employee through a Board Resolution by a Private Limited Company would suffice the requirement for filing the appeal in compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. In the result, the impugned Order is set aside and the Appeal is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability due to the Principal Officer of the Appellant not signing the Appeal Memorandum as per the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The Applicant, a private limited company, had authorized a person to represent them in Central Excise matters and sign relevant documents, arguing that this authorized officer should be considered the Principal Officer.
3. The Revenue reiterated that the Board resolution specifically stated that the appeal should be signed by a particular individual on behalf of the Applicant.
4. The Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and proceeding with the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.
5. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal held that a person duly authorized by the company under a resolution shall be considered the "principal officer" for the purpose of filing appeals, even if the term is not defined in the law.
6. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that specific authorization was required for filing the appeal, stating that a general authorization through a Board resolution suffices for compliance with the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001.
7. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, with all issues being kept open. The Appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the Stay Petition was disposed of.