2008 (3) TMI 86 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit (area based exemption to tobacco & tobacco products manufactured in the North Eastern States) u/not. 69/03 on ground that investment on plant & machinery was not made in terms of the Notification - exemption depends on Chief Commissioners Committee s satisfaction & certification - Chief CCE, in a case such as this relating to implementation of the impugned Notification can himself adjudicate the case exercising the adjudication powers of the CCE assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of department's appeal authorization by one Chief Commissioner.
2. Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 69/2003-CE.
3. Independence of subordinate Commissioner in quasi-judicial process.
4. Remand of cases to Chief Commissioner for fresh decision.
5. Right of appeal after Chief Commissioner's decision.

Analysis:

1. Validity of department's appeal authorization:
The Tribunal found the department's appeal invalid due to an authorization issued by only one Chief Commissioner, while the Committee had divergent views on the impugned Order. The Tribunal emphasized that for an appeal to be valid, the Committee must unanimously agree that the Order is not legal and proper. Since the Committee's opinion was divided, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, leading to the rejection of the authorization and dismissal of the departmental appeal.

2. Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification:
The appeals by the appellant-companies centered on the denial of exemption under Notification No. 69/2003-CE. The Notification required investment in plant and machinery in the North-Eastern Region for availing the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the availability of exemption relied heavily on the Chief Commissioner's Committee's satisfaction and certification. It was observed that the Committee did not consider the appellant-companies' claim of having paid for machinery, which was pending delivery and installation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Orders passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner.

3. Independence of subordinate Commissioner:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of independence in quasi-judicial processes, emphasizing that subordinate Commissioners must apply their minds independently without influence from higher authorities. In this case, where the Chief Commissioner played a crucial role in determining compliance with the Notification, the Tribunal concluded that the subordinate Commissioner could not have acted independently. As a result, the impugned Orders were set aside.

4. Remand of cases to Chief Commissioner:
Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remand the cases to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong for a fresh decision. The Chief Commissioner was directed to provide a fair hearing to the appellant-companies and, if necessary, reconvene the Committee for a fresh decision on the investment compliance.

5. Right of appeal after Chief Commissioner's decision:
The Tribunal clarified that after the Chief Commissioner's decision, the appellant-companies would have the right to appeal. It was noted that the Tribunal had the authority to hear appeals against Orders passed by the Chief Commissioner, as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, set aside the impugned Orders, and allowed the appeals filed by the appellant-companies, remanding the matter to the Chief Commissioner for a fresh decision.