2008 (6) TMI 17 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal filed by Deputy Commissioner - appeal was dismissed as not maintainable observing that there was no valid authorization to Deputy Commissioner by Committee impugned applications filed by the Applicant are not maintainable for lack of locus standi and the Appeal filed earlier is also liable to be rejected on merit as well as on the ground of invalid approval by the Committee of Commissioners as well as lack of a valid authorization - Appeal earlier dismissed does not warrant any recall

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the Applicant
2. Appeal on Merit
3. Validity of the Decision of the Committee of Commissioners
4. Validity of the undated authorization

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Locus standi of the Applicant:
The Tribunal examined whether Shri C.M. Mehra had the locus standi to file the Miscellaneous Applications. The Tribunal noted that a person commencing an action in a judicial proceeding must have locus standi in the subject matter. In public law, especially taxation law, the statute defines the duties and powers of public officials and statutory authorities. Shri Mehra was posted as Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, and was given additional charge of Commissioner of Central Excise, Siliguri. However, there was no notification by the Board appointing him to this specific jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised as prescribed by the statute, and any deviation, such as assigning additional charges without proper notification, was not legally valid. Consequently, Shri Mehra did not have the locus standi to file the Miscellaneous Applications.

Appeal on Merit:
The Tribunal found that the Department failed to succeed on merit. The Respondents procured jute yarn and manufactured twine, which is subject to cess under the Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983. The applicable notifications allowed exemption from cess on yarn used to manufacture twine, provided certain procedures were followed. The Respondents paid cess on yarn initially and the differential cess on twine, thus discharging their total cess liability. The Tribunal concluded that the further demand of cess was unjustified, and the lower Appellate Authority's order setting aside the demand was in accordance with the law.

Validity of the Decision of the Committee of Commissioners:
The Tribunal observed that the decision by the Committee of Commissioners to file an appeal was not an independent decision. One Commissioner noted, "We may file appeal in view of the views in the CC's letter," and the other Commissioner merely signed the note. This indicated that the decision was influenced by the Chief Commissioner's Office rather than being an independent judicial decision. Furthermore, there was no record that the Order appealed against was considered illegal or improper by the Commissioners. Therefore, the decision to file the appeal was invalid.

Validity of the undated authorization:
At the initial hearing, no authorization to file the appeal was found in the records. An undated authorization signed by both Commissioners was later submitted, raising doubts about its authenticity. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Note Sheets and the absence of any record of authorization at the time of preparing the appeal. This led to the conclusion that the purported authorization was not valid. Consequently, the appeal required dismissal for lack of a valid authorization.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the Miscellaneous Applications were not maintainable due to lack of locus standi, and the appeal was liable to be rejected on merit, invalid approval by the Committee of Commissioners, and lack of a valid authorization. The appeal earlier dismissed did not warrant any recall.

← Previous Next →