9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the above objection, revenue was directed to produce on record notesheets, leading to passing of authorization by Committee of Commissioners. 3. Learned advocate for the respondent drew our attention to the note sheet placed on record by the revenue. She submits that inasmuch as the committee of Commissioners has signed the review order without independently applying his mind to the facts of the case and the legal issues involved and without independently arriving at the conclusion that the impugned order is not a correct order, the appeal cannot be held to be maintainable. For the above proposition, he relied upon the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Kundalia Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l may be preferred before the CESTAT. Draft grounds for kind approval. Thereafter the papers were examined by ADC (Rev) on 26.5.2005 who wrote as under:- Note on pre-page may kindly be perused. This case has been proposed for filing appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT. As the Board has vide Notification No. 25/05 dated 13.05.05 constituted Committee of two Commissioners as members to examine the Order-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, this case is to be examined by the Committee of two Commisisoners (i.e. Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal and Commissioner, Central Excise, Indore) Accordingly the Order-in-Appeal is put up for examination and approval for filing appeal. Thereafter file stand simply signed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to satisfy ourselves we have sent for the original record which has been produced before us. All that the file reveals is that a note was put up by the Assistant Commissioner suggesting that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) may please be appealed against. Thereafter the note observed that the file may be marked to the Commissioner Rohtak for decision by the Committee. There is no decision of the Committee on record except the signature of the Commissioner Delhi-III obtained on 19-12-2005 and the signatures of Commissioner Rohtak obtained on 27-12-2005. Both the Commissioners have not even said that they agree with opinion of the Asstt. Commissioner rendered in the Note at X and Y. The only ground in support of the appeal taken in the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent 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 Industries reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 351 (Del.) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
