9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 152 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability or revenue appeal - Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as there was no proper review or authorization in accordance with Section 35 B(2) of the Act, 1944 - Held that - the issue is no more res integra and the same High Court of Chattisgarh in a latter decision answered the question of law now referred to this Tribunal for decision. Therefore, by following the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 924 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT and also of various other decisions of the High Courts, referred by the Revenue, it is found that in the present case the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable and did not suffer from any infirmity of not having proper authorization. Considering the amount involved in the present issue well below ₹ 10 lakhs , the appeal is dismissed on this ground. - Appeal dismissed
Issues involved: Appeal against order dated 31.05.2007, maintainability of appeal under Section 35 B(2) of the Act, 1944.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur, where certain proceedings were initiated against the respondent for short payment of central excise duty. The order-in-original dated 28.11.2006 confirmed central excise duty, ordered confiscation of seized ingots, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by setting aside a portion of the demand and the confiscation of seized goods but upheld the penalty. The Tribunal, in a final order dated 7.1.2010, restored the order-in-original by allowing the appeal by the Revenue. Subsequently, the matter was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh to the Tribunal to determine the maintainability of the appeal under Section 35 B(2) of the Act, 1944. 2. The respondent contended that the appeal was not maintainable as there was no proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners in accordance with Section 35 B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was argued that the appeal was not preferred as per the proper authorization requirements, highlighting the absence of a meeting of the Committee on the same date and the lack of signatures from one of the Commissioners with a date. 3. The Revenue, on the other hand, contested the respondent's argument, citing precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including a case upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference was made to a similar case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh, where it was held that the appeal could not be dismissed solely on the ground that both Commissioners did not sign the authorization on the same day, as long as both agreed on the opinion regarding the legality of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the legal and factual aspects, the Tribunal found that the issue of maintainability of the appeal was no longer res integra, as the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh had previously answered a similar question of law. Following the decisions of the High Court and various other precedents cited by the Revenue, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable and did not suffer from any authorization-related infirmity. 5. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appeal fell under the amended litigation policy of the Government, applicable to all pending appeals of the Tribunal since 17.12.2015. Considering the amount involved in the issue was below a certain threshold, the appeal was dismissed on this ground, in line with the applicable policy. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue, based on the legal precedents and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh, and dismissed the appeal considering the amended litigation policy of the Government.
|
