2009 (1) TMI 139 - AT - Service Tax

COD application by revenue for condoning the delay of 78 days - second review by the Committee of Commissioners - In the second review, there was difference of opinion between the Commissioners. Thereafter, the Chief Commissioner decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal - once the Review Committee has taken a decision not to file an appeal before CESTAT, then the said Committee becomes functus officio - once the Committee decided to accept the OIA, the matter ends then and there. There is no legal provision for sitting in judgments over the decision of the Review Committee delay in filing appeal is not condoned

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, validity of second review by Committee of Commissioners, maintainability of appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a case where the Revenue filed a COD application to condone a delay of 78 days in filing an appeal. The issue arose when the Chief Commissioner decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal after a second review by the Committee of Commissioners. The learned Advocate argued that once the Review Committee accepted the order, there was no provision for further appeals. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that there was no legal provision for a second review by the Committee of Commissioners, citing a previous decision in CC, Tuticorin Vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that once the Review Committee decided not to file an appeal, it became functus officio, and there was no provision to reopen or review their decision. The Chief Commissioner's influence on the Review Committee was noted, leading to bias in the decision-making process.

The Tribunal emphasized that Section 35B of the Finance Act did not allow for the reopening or revision of a Review Committee's decision. The judgment highlighted that decisions not to file an appeal could not be later reviewed, and applications seeking condonation of delay on that basis could not be entertained. The Tribunal, following the precedent cited, dismissed the COD application and subsequently dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. The case was directed to be placed before the original bench for passing the final order, as per the decision rendered.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the limitations on second reviews by Committees of Commissioners and reinforces the principle that decisions not to file appeals are final and cannot be revisited. The influence of higher authorities on such decisions was deemed inappropriate, and the Tribunal upheld the sanctity of the Review Committee's initial determination. The dismissal of the COD application and the subsequent appeals underscore the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the finality of decisions in the appellate process.