2010 (1) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Stricture against department- The Revenue s Appeal is not maintainable since authorisation is not in accordance with law to file the appeal. He also submits that prior to authorisation appeal remedy has been sought. Therefore it is an unauthorised appeal. Held that- appeal filed mechanically never grants right ipso facto to plead its maintainability. Short cut procedure followed in authorizing filing of appeal causes prejudice to interest of revenue. Total causal approach made to seek remedy of appeal calling for dismissal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of Revenue's appeal due to lack of proper authorization.
2. Allegations of legal infirmities in the filing of appeals by Revenue.
3. Dismissal of Appeal No. E/1065/07 as infructuous.

Issue 1: Maintainability of Revenue's appeal due to lack of proper authorization:
The Respondent's Counsel objected to the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal, arguing that the appeal was unauthorized as the necessary authorization was not in accordance with the law. The Counsel contended that the appeal lacked essential elements, such as reflecting the Committee's examination of the matter, evaluation of evidence, and application of relevant laws. Citing a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Counsel emphasized that such legal deficiencies render the appeal unauthorized. The Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds.

Issue 2: Allegations of legal infirmities in the filing of appeals by Revenue:
The Joint CDR representing the Appellant opposed the Respondent's contentions, asserting that the authorization for the appeal was a conscious decision by the Committee, indicating that the appealed order was neither legal nor proper. The Tribunal noted a pattern of legal infirmities in the filing of appeals by the Revenue, highlighting instances where appeals were filed casually and without proper authorization. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and the rule of law in seeking remedies through appeals. The Tribunal expressed concern over the Revenue's repeated procedural lapses and emphasized the need for proper authorization and adherence to legal requirements in filing appeals.

Issue 3: Dismissal of Appeal No. E/1065/07 as infructuous:
During the proceedings, it was clarified that Appeal No. E/1065/07 had become infructuous as it was repeatedly filed, while Appeal No. E/505/07 was the appropriate remedy sought. Consequently, Appeal No. E/1065/07 was deemed infructuous and dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the cross objection, stating that it did not require disposal.

This judgment underscores the significance of proper authorization and adherence to legal procedures in filing appeals, highlighting the consequences of procedural lapses and the need for strict compliance with legal requirements to ensure the maintainability of appeals.