2015 (8) TMI 295 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainablity of appeal - Revenue had not complied with the provisions of Section 35B(2) of The Central Excise Act, 1944 - Approval from Committee of Commissioners - Held that - Compliance with the Section is necessary and that in the event of the failure to comply with the same, no appeal is deemed to have been instituted in the eyes of law. The Division Bench, in that case, dealt with Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is para materia to Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with which we are concerned - The Supreme Court in CCE, Vadodara vs. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills, 1998 (4) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that the provisions of Section 35B (2) are clearly required as a prerequisite to the direction to any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal. As no such direction was produced, the appeal was dismissed. - In the present case also, Section 35B(2) has not been complied with - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CESTAT based on non-compliance with Section 35B(2) of The Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed against the order of the CESTAT, which were dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 35B(2) of The Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 35B(2) empowers the Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise to direct an authorized officer to appeal on its behalf to the Appellate Tribunal if it deems an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) as not legal or proper. The Division Bench of the High Court, in a previous case, emphasized the necessity of compliance with this section, stating that failure to comply renders any appeal not instituted in the eyes of the law. This ruling is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Vadodara vs. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills, where it was held that compliance with Section 35B(2) is a prerequisite for directing a Central Excise Officer to file an appeal. As in the present case, where there was no compliance with Section 35B(2), and the documents presented did not indicate adherence to its provisions, the appeals were dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the critical importance of complying with statutory provisions such as Section 35B(2) of The Central Excise Act, 1944, before initiating appeals against orders of the CESTAT. Failure to adhere to these requirements can result in the dismissal of appeals, as demonstrated in this case. Compliance with legal procedures and prerequisites is essential to ensure the validity and admissibility of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.