2001 (10) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Sufficiency of authorization by Commissioner under Section 35B(2) regarding legality or propriety of order appealed against.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, focusing on whether a mere authorization by the Commissioner of Central Excise is adequate to express satisfaction regarding the legality or propriety of the order appealed against. The learned Departmental Representative argued that even without explicit mention in the authorization, an appeal can be entertained, citing precedents like Collector of Central Excise v. Berger Paints India Ltd. and Tribunal CCE, Bombay v. Nelco Ltd. In the case of Berger Paints India Ltd., the Supreme Court emphasized the need for an application of mind by the Collector to prevent frivolous appeals. The Tribunal's decision in Nelco Ltd. highlighted that the authorization itself indicates the Collector's view on the legality of the impugned order.

Moving on, the judgment discusses an unreported decision presented by the Departmental Representative, where despite the Revenue's appeal being filed without explicit satisfaction mentioned, the objection was not upheld due to the late stage at which it was raised. The Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills is then analyzed, emphasizing the requirement for the Collector to form an opinion on the legality or propriety of the order appealed against. The Court clarified that such opinion should be evident either in the appeal authorization or the note sheet.

Further, the judgment delves into the specific case at hand, where the appeal authorization lacked any reference to the Commissioner's satisfaction regarding the order's legality or propriety. The note sheet from the relevant file revealed a lack of consistent reasoning, indicating a lack of proper authorization for filing the appeal as mandated by Section 35B(2). The Collector's endorsement without independent consideration highlighted the absence of reflected satisfaction regarding the order appealed against. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the inadequacy of authorization for filing an appeal as required by the law.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of a meaningful consideration and explicit reflection of the Collector's satisfaction in the appeal authorization or note sheet to comply with the provisions of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. The case serves as a reminder of the necessity for a clear and reasoned authorization before initiating an appeal process in matters of excise law.