2010 (6) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Review by Department- File signed by Commissioner in mechanical manner, without disclosing his identity. Review should be conducted in the manner known to law, without any procedure followed for convenience of authorities. Review order should state reason why it is sought by revenue. Held that- in the light of the decision of CCE, Delhi -II v. B. E. Office Automation Products Pot. Ltd., review should be in accordance with the procedure known to law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Authorization and procedure for filing appeals before CESTAT.

Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944:
The case involved a situation where the Commissioner (Appeals) did not impose a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the assessee despite a shortage of excisable goods being detected by Central Excise officers during a visit. The Committee of Commissioners found this decision to be incorrect as it was believed that the shortage indicated an intention to evade duty payment. It was argued that the failure to impose the penalty was not acceptable as it was evident that the assessee had contravened various provisions of the Central Excise Rules with the intent to evade duty payment. The Committee directed the Joint Commissioner to file an appeal before CESTAT against the order in appeal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of imposing penalties in such cases.

Authorization and procedure for filing appeals before CESTAT:
The judgment highlighted lapses in the authorization process for filing appeals, emphasizing the need for adherence to proper procedures known to law. It was noted that a Commissioner had signed an appeal note without disclosing his identity fully, raising concerns about the lack of transparency in the process. The judgment stressed the importance of conducting reviews and filing appeals in accordance with established legal procedures to ensure the protection of public interest. Citing a previous case, it was emphasized that reviews and appeals must follow recognized legal procedures to be considered valid. Consequently, the appeals of Revenue were dismissed for not adhering to the proper procedure, underscoring the significance of legal compliance in such matters.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of imposing penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the proper authorization and procedure for filing appeals before CESTAT. It emphasized the necessity of imposing penalties in cases of duty evasion and highlighted the importance of following established legal procedures for reviews and appeals to safeguard public interest and ensure legal validity.