1990 (10) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Review application filed as an appeal.
2. Interpretation of Sections 35B and 35E of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
3. Proper filing of appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore filed a review application in Form No. E.A. 5 against the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Despite notices sent to the respondents, no one appeared on their behalf. The appellant's representative, Shri M. K. Sohal, argued that the review application should be treated as an appeal due to procedural errors made when the Tribunal was newly established. However, the Tribunal noted that the review application should have been an appeal under Section 35B of the Act. The appellant failed to rectify this error despite opportunities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Sections 35B and 35E of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Section 35B allows appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by specific authorities, including the Collector of Central Excise. On the other hand, Section 35E empowers the Board or Collector of Central Excise to pass certain orders, including calling for the examination of records and directing applications to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that a review application can only be filed in specific circumstances and must be treated as an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

3. The Tribunal scrutinized the authorization letter issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, directing the filing of an application to the Appellate Tribunal. Despite the authorization specifying an application, the Revenue mistakenly filed a review application under Section 35E instead of an appeal under Section 35B. The Tribunal concluded that the review application could not be treated as an appeal since the impugned order was passed by the Appellate Collector, necessitating the filing of an appeal within the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to improper filing and lack of jurisdiction.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and correctly identifying the appropriate legal recourse, especially in distinguishing between review applications and appeals under the relevant statutory provisions.