2020 (6) TMI 330 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner of Central Excise to revise any order passed by an officer subordinate to him and pass an order-in-revision - conflicting decisions - matter referred to Larger Bench. HELD THAT - The same yardstick should be applied regardless of which party appeals and in view of the conflicting decisions between the Tribunal Bangalore and the Tribunal Mumbai, it is found that this is a fit case to be referred to larger bench for a decision on the maintainability of appeals filed under Section 86 after 19.08.2009 by both the Revenue and the assessee against orders-in-revision passed by the Commissioners. Registry is directed to present the file before the Hon ble President for constitution of a larger bench to decide the following question - Are appeals by the Revenue and assessee against orders-in-revision passed after 19.08.2009 maintainable before the CESTAT in the absence of any specific saving clause in Section 86 of the Finance Act 1994?

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Sections 84 and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding the jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain appeals against orders-in-revision post-amendment.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order-in-revision dated 11.03.2011, following amendments to Sections 84 and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 19.08.2009. The amendment replaced the power of the Commissioner of Central Excise to issue orders-in-revision with the provision for the department to appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Notably, a saving clause was inserted in Section 84 but not in Section 86. This raised the question of whether CESTAT could entertain appeals post-amendment under the erstwhile Section 84. The appellant relied on the General Clauses Act, arguing that accrued rights and privileges under the repealed enactment should not be lost, thus maintaining the right to appeal to CESTAT.

The respondent, however, cited a judgment by the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT, which held that the Committee of Chief Commissioners lacked the power to review orders-in-revision post-amendment to Section 86. This conflicting stance between different benches necessitated a resolution. The Tribunal acknowledged the contradictory decisions and deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench for a definitive ruling on the maintainability of appeals filed under Section 86 after 19.08.2009 by both the Revenue and the assessee against orders-in-revision passed by the Commissioners. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a consistent approach regardless of the appealing party and directed the Registry to present the case for constitution of a larger bench to address the question of maintainability before CESTAT in the absence of a specific saving clause in Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Ultimately, the case highlighted the need for clarity on the jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain appeals against orders-in-revision post-amendment, necessitating a resolution by a larger bench to address the conflicting interpretations and establish a uniform approach to maintainability under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.