2017 (7) TMI 601 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 and Rule 15 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that - if the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper, then the Committee of Commissioners is required to examine such order and may have the powers to direct an officer to file appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, in this case, in compliance with the provisions of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 86 (2A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the committee of Commissioners authorised the Assistant Commissioner, Service tax, Division-III, Gurgaon. It is an admitted fact that the applications are not signed by the person authorised by the Committee of Commissioners as per section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - applications for condonation of delay are not maintainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals and applications for condonation of delay.
2. Authority to file applications for condonation of delay.
3. Compliance with CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 regarding authorization.
4. Signatory requirements for applications for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed appeals against impugned orders after realizing the need for separate appeals. The delay in filing the appeals was explained as unintentional due to the initial filing of a consolidated appeal. However, the Tribunal found the delay not maintainable as per CESTAT Procedure Rules, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

2. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the authority of the person signing the applications for condonation of delay. The Committee of Commissioners had authorized the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Division III, Gurgaon to file the appeal, but the applications were signed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Gurgaon. This discrepancy was argued to be a violation of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, leading to a request for dismissal of the applications.

3. The Assistant Commissioner was authorized by the Committee of Commissioners to file the appeal, as per the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and Finance Act. However, Rule 8 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 mandates that the person signing the appeal must also sign the applications for condonation of delay. As the applications were not signed by the authorized officer, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments highlighting the importance of proper authorization and dismissed the applications.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for applications for condonation of delay to be signed by the authorized person as per the Committee of Commissioners' directions. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal found that the lack of proper authorization for signing the applications rendered them not maintainable. Consequently, the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay led to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH highlights the issues related to delay in filing appeals, authority for filing applications for condonation of delay, compliance with procedural rules, and signatory requirements. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and previous judicial pronouncements, emphasizing the importance of proper authorization and adherence to procedural rules in such matters.