2007 (11) TMI 214 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals filed by dept. don t indicate that the jurisdictional Comm. filing these appeals has come to a conclusion, as required u/s 35B (2) CEA, that the order passed by the lower app. authority isn t legal in his opinion - in the absence of this no appeal can be entertained by this Tribunal - It is high time that Dept makes appropriate arrangements for effectively representing its cases by posting competent & adequate number of DRs or by engaging competent advocates appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
Undervaluation in appeals filed by the Department, Lack of proper representation by the Department, Failure to meet requirements under Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Undervaluation Issue:
The judgment addresses the issue of undervaluation raised by the Department in their appeals. The Department argued that the Addl. Commissioner's findings were not correctly highlighted in the show-cause notice. However, the Tribunal found it challenging to appreciate the Department's appeals based on the arguments presented. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Department to improve its representation before the Tribunal by assigning competent representatives or engaging skilled advocates. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department due to the lack of clarity and effectiveness in presenting their case.

Lack of Proper Representation Issue:
Another significant issue highlighted in the judgment is the lack of proper representation by the Department. The Tribunal noted that the appeals filed did not demonstrate that the jurisdictional Commissioner had concluded, as mandated by Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that the lower appellate authority's order was not legally sound. The absence of this essential requirement meant that the Tribunal could not entertain the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal had no choice but to dismiss both appeals filed by the Department, emphasizing the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for filing appeals.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA addressed the issues of undervaluation in appeals filed by the Department and the lack of proper representation. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Department to enhance its case presentation and ensure compliance with statutory requirements, such as Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dismissal of the appeals underscored the significance of meeting legal standards and effectively representing cases before the Tribunal.