2015 (2) TMI 1006 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Notification No.24/2005-CE(NT), dt.13.05.2005 - Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Committee for Ahmedabad-II Commissionerate. When this preliminary objection was raised on 19.11.2012 by the Advocate of the Respondents during hearing, ld.A.R. sought time to satisfy the preliminary objection but no evidence is produced by the Department that on the date of signing the Review authorization Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara was also holding additional charge of Chief Commissioner Central Excise Ahmedabad. Further, both the Chief Commissioners have signed the authorization on different dates, which means that committee as such has not met on a single day. On this issue the case laws CST Vs L.R. Sharma & Co. 2013 (6) TMI 537 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and CCE Vs Honda Motorcycles & Scooters India P. Ltd 2014 (2) TMI 587 - CESTAT NEW DELHI have already decided the issue in favour of the assessees. Appeals filed by the Revenue filed on the basis of an invalid Review authorization deserve to be dismissed as not maintainable on this ground alone, without further going into the merits of these proceedings. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dropping of show cause notice, maintainability of appeals based on authorization, validity of Review Committee's composition.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-II, dropping the show cause notice. The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority did not appreciate the evidences available on record and only commented on the investigation's aspects.

2. The Revenue argued through their representative that the Respondents confessed to clandestine activities, and any retractions made were not received by the Revenue. They sought the appeals to be allowed by setting aside the OIO passed by the adjudicating authority.

3. The Respondents, represented by their advocate, argued that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to improper authorization by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. They contended that the competent committee required for authorization was not constituted as per the relevant notification. The advocate also relied on case laws to support the arguments made before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal observed that as per Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, a notified committee of Chief Commissioners must form an opinion before filing an appeal against the Commissioner's order. It was noted that the constitution of the committee for Ahmedabad Central Excise Commissionerates did not include the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara, who signed the review order in question. The Tribunal found that the Review authorization was invalid due to the lack of jurisdiction of one of the signing Chief Commissioners, and the committee did not meet on a single day, as evidenced by the different dates of signing. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals based on an invalid Review authorization were not maintainable, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals and upholding of the OIO passed by the adjudicating authority.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as non-maintainable and allowed the cross objections filed by the Respondents, thereby upholding the Order-in-Original issued by the adjudicating authority.

This detailed analysis showcases the key legal arguments, procedural issues, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final judgment in the case.