9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on its behalf - record also does not disclose that these two officers applied their mind to the issue and recorded any opinion, as per the requirement of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act that the order of the Commissioner (A) was not legal or proper and warranted to be challenged by filing an appeal - there should be a meaningful consideration which should be reflected on the note sheets in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo grounds namely :- (i) No opinion is formed by the Committee of Commissioners about the illegality of the order as required under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. (ii) There was no authorization by the Committee of Commissioners to file appeal on its behalf. 2. Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act reads as under :- The Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise may, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither of the two requirements which are mandatory stood satisfied. 4. The aforesaid order of the CESTAT is under challenge in the present appeal. In order to show that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not legal and proper, appeal should be filed. The noting in the relevant record are produced. A perusal thereof would reveal that after the receipt of the copy of order passed by the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who allegedly constitute the Committee of Commissioners, simply appended their signatures to the aforesaid note on 7th January and 8th January, 2008 respectively. This shows that there was no meeting of the aforesaid two officers to consider the case. The record also does not disclose that these two officers applied their mind to the issue and recorded any opinion, as per the requirement of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
