2015 (10) TMI 1786 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Revenue pleads that the Committee of Commissioners has applied their mind and have decided to file appeal before the Tribunal. As such, it is their contention that the provisions of Section 35(B)(2) were duly complied with. - Held that - noting by C.C.E. Delhi-I is suggestion to C.C.E.-Delhi-II for filing an appeal before the Tribunal and the noting by C.C.E.-Delhi-II are agreeing to that suggestion. It also stands observed by C.C.E.-II that the authorization to file appeal is with C.C.E.-Delhi-I. There is no formal order passed by the Committee of Commissioners directing any officer, to file appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) before Tribunal. As already noted, the requirement of Section 35(B)(2) is direction by Committee of Commissioners to any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal. Such directions, admittedly, have to be under the joint signatures of both the member (Commissioners) of the Committee. Suggestion by one Commissioner and acceptance by other Commissioners cannot be called to be an order signed by both the Commissioners directing any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal. As such, we find no mistake in the said order of the Tribunal, requiring any rectification. - Rectification denied.

Issues: Compliance with Section 35(B)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

In this case, the Revenue filed a ROM against the rejection of their appeal by the Tribunal, citing non-compliance with Section 35(B)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This section mandates that the Committee of Commissioners must direct a Central Excise Officer to file an appeal if they find the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to be improper or illegal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal as no formal order directing any officer to file an appeal was presented. The ROM argued that the Committee had indeed decided to file an appeal, as evidenced by the notesheet notings. However, the Tribunal found that the notings did not constitute a formal order as required by the statute, as they lacked joint signatures of both Commissioners. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld its decision, stating that a mere suggestion and acceptance between Commissioners did not fulfill the statutory requirement for filing an appeal.

The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation and application of Section 35(B)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which necessitates a formal direction by the Committee of Commissioners to a Central Excise Officer to file an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized that such directions must bear the joint signatures of both Commissioners to be considered valid. In this case, the notesheet notings, while indicating a decision to file an appeal, lacked the requisite formal order with joint signatures. The Tribunal reasoned that a mere suggestion by one Commissioner and agreement by another did not meet the statutory requirement for compliance with Section 35(B)(2). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal rejection was justified due to the absence of a proper direction from the Committee of Commissioners.

The judgment underscores the significance of strict adherence to statutory provisions, particularly in matters of compliance with procedural requirements for filing appeals. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of formal orders issued in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for specific directives with joint signatures from relevant authorities to ensure legal validity. By upholding the rejection of the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that procedural compliance is essential in legal proceedings, and deviations from statutory mandates may result in adverse consequences, such as appeal dismissals. The case serves as a reminder of the critical role of procedural regularity in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the legal system.

← Previous Next →