9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original field by M/s. V.S. Exim (P) Ltd., Sikandrabad, Shri Vinay Gupta and Shri Sameer Gupta, Directors of the aforesaid company and set aside the duty demand confirmed against the company as also penalty imposed upon the company as well as its Directors respectively. 2. Shri M.P. Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondents at the outset had taken a preliminary objection that these appeals are not maintainable as proper authorisation as envisaged under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not obtained before filing of the appeals. 3. On perusal of the record of respective appeals, we find that authorisation under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 annexed to the memorandum of appeal is sign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Review), and the file was forwarded by Joint Commissioner (Review) under his signature dated 17th of March 2006 to the Committee of Commissioner for considering file of appeal before CESTAT. Accordingly, in order to verify this fact we have perused the relevant file notings produced by the learned D.R. On perusal of the file noting we find that initial note for filing appeal against the impugned order was initiated under signature of Inspector Shri S. Chandna, Superintendent (R) and note thereafter was signed on 23-6-2006 by AC (Review) and referred to Joint Commissioner (Review) who in turn forwarded the file to the Committee of Commissioners with following observation : "Reference to the notes above, O-I-A is put up to the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, from the perusal of the file notings it is apparent that the Committee of Commissioners did not sit together to apply their mind to the facts of the case. The matter has been dealt with by them like any other bureaucratic file without going through the record. Appending of signatures on the note forwarded by the subordinate officers in our view is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, therefore, we conclude that instant appeals have been filed in violation of mandate of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as such, the appeals are not maintainable. In our aforesaid view, we find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CCE, Delhi-I v. Kundalia Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
