2013 (5) TMI 626 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of review order u/s 35E As per respondent review order bearing had been signed by only one of the Chief Commissioners from the Committee of Chief Commissioners. Hence, it is not an Order of the Committee of the Chief Commissioners. Held that - As per Section 35E of the Act, the Committee of Chief Commissioners are required to examine the legality and propriety of any such decision or order passed by the Commissioner. It is not a case for not signing the Review Order by the other Commissioner as contended by the ld. A.R. Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s Rex Rubber Works 2002 (5) TMI 442 - CEGAT, MUMBAI , M/s Pragati Silicones (P) Ltd. 2001 (4) TMI 125 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI and M/s Prakash Manufac. Indus. 2000 (3) TMI 550 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI are applicable in this case. Thus, relying on these decisions Review Order is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 35E of the Act. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Review Order validity under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Issue 1: Review Order Validity
The appeal filed by the Revenue was against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Respondent argued that the Review Order was not valid as it was signed only by one Chief Commissioner instead of both as required by Section 35E of the Act. The Special Counsel for the Revenue contended that the defect of not signing by both Chief Commissioners was curable. The Tribunal found that the Committee of Chief Commissioners is mandated to examine the legality and propriety of decisions or orders by the Commissioner. In this case, the Chief Commissioners had differing opinions on accepting or appealing against the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal noted specific grounds of non-acceptance of the Review Order, including misapplication of case laws, failure to consider relevant provisions for classification, and lack of appreciation for specific descriptions under Chapter 39. The Review Order was deemed not in compliance with Section 35E, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion
The Tribunal concluded that the Review Order did not meet the requirements of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, rendering the appeal filed by the Revenue not maintainable. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the failure to adhere to the prescribed procedures for review under the Act. The judgment highlights the significance of procedural compliance in legal matters and the necessity for thorough examination of decisions and orders by competent authorities.