9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, Service tax, Division-III, Gurgaon. It is an admitted fact that the applications are not signed by the person authorised by the Committee of Commissioners as per section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - applications for condonation of delay are not maintainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/60482-60484/2017-SM, ST/COD/60249-60251/2017 - A/61267-61269/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri R.K. Sharma, AR for the Appellant- Revenue Shri Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order and has filed applications for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in the case of CC (Port), Kolkata Vs. Simplex Engineering Pvt. Limited - 2012 (278) ELT 390 (Tri. Kolkata). 3. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise is In-charge of jurisdiction and have powers to file applications for condonation of delay, therefore, on this ground the applications for condonation of delay is not to be dismissed. Moreover, the reasons for delay have been explained and therefore, the applications for condonation of delay are to be allowed. 4. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. On perusal of record, I find that the Review Order No. 05/Commr.(A)/S.Tax/2014 dated 19.08.2014 gives authority to Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division III, Gurgaon to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorised officer) to appeal [on its behalf] to the Appellate Tribunal. 5. On going through the said provisions, I find that if the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper, then the Committee of Commissioners is required to examine such order and may have the powers to direct an officer to file appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, in this case, in compliance with the provisions of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 86 (2A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the committee of Commissioners authorised the Assistant Commissioner, Service tax, Division-III, Gurgaon. Rule 8 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 reads as under:- RULE 8. Contents of a memorandum of appeal. (1) and (2) ...... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 390 (Tri. Kolkata) the Tribunal observed as under:- 4. Further we also find that even the revised COD application has been signed by an officer of the rank of Dy. Commissioner but we could not find any authorization in his name to file the application. Further when the original COD application had been filed in January, 2010 Shri Shekhar Kumar Bose had been authorized by name by both the Commissioners. We do not know why this procedure was not adopted subsequently. 6. As it is an admitted fact that the applications are not signed by the person authorised by the Committee of Commissioners as per section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, in the light of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
