2014 (10) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Validity of authorization - Committee of Commissioners Constituted of Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that - authorization obtain to file the appeal is undated, therefore, the authorization is not proper. Hence, the appeal is required to be dismissed in toto - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Authorization to file appeal, Proper approval process, Requirement of legal opinion for filing appeal

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), with the respondent also filing a Cross-objection. The primary issue raised was regarding the authorization obtained to file the appeal, which the respondent's counsel argued was undated, rendering it improper and necessitating the dismissal of the appeal in its entirety. The case records revealed that the authorization was approved by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, and sent via fax to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum, for endorsement. However, it was noted that the relevant documents for consideration by the latter Commissioner were unclear, and the authorization itself was undated, drawing parallels to a previous tribunal decision where a similar issue arose concerning an undated authorization signed by a Commissioner without any date. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Review Committee's decision-making process on the legality and necessity of filing an appeal, as highlighted in a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. It was observed that in the present case, the Commissioners did not provide any opinion on the legality of the original order or the need for an appeal, merely signing the authorization without proper consideration of the case facts.

The Assistant Revenue relied on a previous Supreme Court decision to argue that the appeal was duly authorized by the Collector after due consideration to prevent frivolous appeals. However, the Tribunal noted that the application of mind to the relevant points for filing an appeal was crucial, and in this case, the purpose and necessity of the appeal were not adequately explained. The Tribunal referenced a judgment from the Allahabad High Court to support the argument that both Commissioners need not sit together to decide on filing an appeal. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal reiterated the requirement for a recorded decision on the filing of an appeal to prevent frivolous appeals. It pointed out that in the absence of such findings or opinions by the Committee of Commissioners, the mere circulation of the file for authorization was insufficient to validate the appeal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the authorization obtained for filing the appeal was incorrect and lacked the necessary legal scrutiny and approval process. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed unauthorized and dismissed. The Cross-objection raised by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of a thorough and legally sound authorization process for filing appeals, highlighting the need for proper consideration and decision-making by the concerned authorities before initiating legal proceedings.