9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 235 - AT - Central ExciseReview Review should be conducted in the manner known to law without any other procedure followed for convenience of authorities. Review order should state the reason why appeal remedy is sought be revenue. Unless the public order has its characterstics known to law, that does not get sanction in the eye of law.
Issues: Lack of proper procedure in review order leading to dismissal of Revenue's appeals.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the lack of adherence to proper procedures in the review order filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal called for a report to understand the procedure followed by the Authorities for review of the order appealed and noted discrepancies in the review order. Specifically, one Commissioner signed the review order on 2-4-2008 without disclosing his identity as a public servant, while another Commissioner did not even date the review. The Tribunal emphasized that the review process should strictly adhere to legal procedures and the review order must clearly state the reasons for seeking an appeal remedy by the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of conducting reviews in a manner known to law without resorting to any other convenience procedures. It was noted that the lapses in the authorization process by the Revenue had been criticized by various forums, including the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Tribunal referenced a specific case involving CCE, Delhi H v. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd., where the court emphasized the necessity for reviews to be conducted in accordance with established legal procedures to protect public interest. The judgment emphasized that it was crucial for the review process to align with the recognized legal framework to ensure its validity in the eyes of the law. Based on the observations and findings regarding the deficiencies in the review order and the failure to follow proper procedures, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the Revenue as they were deemed not maintainable. The judgment concluded with the pronouncement that the orders were dictated and pronounced in the open Court, indicating the formal closure of the case.
|
