2016 (1) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay in filing the appeals by the revenue - The delay is for the reason that the Review Committee of Commissioners accepted the impugned orders. However, thereafter the Review Committee reviewed its own decision and ordered to file appeal in terms of Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - The question to be considered is whether the decision of review in terms of Section 35E(1) is an administrative function exercised by the Committee and which can be changed/reviewed by the Committee. Held that - the High Court of Karnataka held that the review of its earlier decision of the Committee of Commissioners at the instance of Chief Commissioner is one without the authority of law. - the law only provides for review the order by a Committee of Commissioners. The law does not provide that the Chief Commissioner can sit over the order of the Committee of Commissioners and given further directions to file appeal or to reconsider the matter. Whereas in the case of Madura Coats, the Hon ble High Court found that there is no explicit provision in law to prevent from constituting a fresh review committee for deciding the matter which has already been decided. A fresh decision by the same committee is valid in law. - Considering the circumstances, we allow the delay in the present case. - Delay condoned - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeals due to review committee's decision

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of delay in filing appeals due to the Review Committee of Commissioners accepting and then reviewing its own decision to file appeals in accordance with Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argues that the decision to review is administrative and can be modified, citing precedents like the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. and the Madras High Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary, the parties' counsels contend that once the Committee of Commissioners passes a review order under Section 35E(1), it cannot review its own decision, relying on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), Bangalore Vs. Dell International Services India P. Ltd.

The primary question addressed by the tribunal is whether the decision of review under Section 35E(1) is an administrative function that can be altered by the Committee of Commissioners. The Delhi High Court's ruling in Japan Airlines case is cited, emphasizing that the Committee's role is administrative and not quasi-judicial, as it does not decide the dispute between the parties but assesses if the adjudication order is against the Revenue's interest. The judgment clarifies that the Committee's decision is administrative in nature, as it does not require a de novo investigation or a hearing.

The tribunal compares the decisions of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts to analyze the variance in facts. In the Dell International Services case, the Chief Commissioner's intervention in reviewing the Committee's decision was deemed unauthorized. However, the Madras High Court's ruling in Madura Coats case allows for constituting a fresh Review Committee to reconsider a matter already decided, as there is no explicit provision preventing it in the law. Based on the Madras High Court's decision, the tribunal concludes that a fresh decision by the same committee is legally valid.

Consequently, the tribunal allows the delay in the present case and approves the COD applications. In a specific appeal where there is no delay, the COD application is dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment highlights the importance of legal provisions and precedents in determining the validity of review decisions by administrative bodies in tax matters.

Conclusion:
The judgment clarifies the nature of review decisions by the Committee of Commissioners in tax appeals, emphasizing the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions. It underscores the significance of legal provisions and court precedents in guiding the review process and upholding the principles of administrative law in tax matters.