2009 (1) TMI 121 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal by department - Commissionerate has passed the impugned Order-in-Review under Section 84 directing filing an application before the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no provision for Commissioner to review order passed by his sub-ordinate officer and direct filing of appeal against it before Commissioner (A) - held that Commissioner had no authority to act as Commissioner of Central Excise, Siliguri having not been so appointed by the Board as required under the law - On both counts, the said O-I-R cannot be sustained and subsequent Appeal and the Order-in-Appeal cannot survive intital O-I-O passed by the Deputy Commissioner sustains

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the impugned Order-in-Review under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Authority of the Commissioner to revise orders and authorize appeals.
3. Compliance with legal provisions in sanctioning refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the validity of the Order-in-Review passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned a refund claim, followed by an Order-in-Review by Shri C.M. Mehra directing an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). However, Section 84 does not explicitly permit such actions. The Commissioner is empowered to revise orders after providing the assessee with a hearing opportunity. The judgment highlights the departure of Section 84 from other statutes in terms of the Commissioner's authority and emphasizes the need for adherence to legal provisions.

2. The judgment delves into the authority of the Commissioner to revise orders and authorize appeals. It clarifies that under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Commissioner can revise orders but does not have the explicit power to authorize appeals like in other enactments. The judgment critiques the mechanical approach of Departmental Authorities in directing appeals without proper legal basis. It highlights the impermissible nature of directing appeals under Section 84 and stresses the importance of statutory compliance and application of legal provisions.

3. The judgment also discusses compliance with legal provisions in sanctioning refund claims. It references a previous case where Shri C.M. Mehra was found to lack the authority to act as Commissioner of Central Excise, further invalidating the Order-in-Review and subsequent appeal. The judgment concludes by disposing of the Department's appeal, upholding the initial Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The decision emphasizes the necessity of proper appointments and adherence to legal procedures in official actions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA provides insights into the interpretation of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, the authority of Commissioners in revising orders, and the significance of legal compliance in official decisions.