9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nda, Member (J) Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. In this case, the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order dated 17-2-05 setting aside the order-in-original and allowing the appeal of the respondents with consequential relief to them. This appeal has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Technical), Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate against the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. We find that the appeal has been filed on 24th May, 2005 along with an authorization dated 18-5-05 signed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Officer authorized by him (Sic) in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorized Officer) to appeal on its behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order." 5. We have also looked at the legal provisions, which existed before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2005. Prior to 13-5-05, the jurisdictional Commissioner, if he was of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not legal or proper, he could direct any Central Excise Officer authorized by him to file an appeal before the Tribunal against such order. However, w.e.f. 13-5-05 only the Committee of Commissioners, if it is of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper, can direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal within the stipulated time period." It is clear from the authorization reproduced above that the Commissioner has invoked the powers under Section 35B(2), but obviously while signing the authorization he has not taken care to see the amended provisions under the said Section 35B(2) as it stood on the date he signed the authorization on 18-5-05. Had he done so, he would have realized that it was only the Committee of Commissioners who was empowered under the said Section 35B(2) and not he. Had he looked at the amended legal provisions, he would have also noticed that under sub-section (1B) of Section 35B, the Board has been empowered to constitute Committee of Commissioners and further that under Notification No. 25/05 (N.T.), dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no need for making procedural changes without giving adequate notice to the public at large and the implementing officials. In some of the advanced countries, changes in procedural law particularly in taxation matters, are made with adequate notice of six months to one year, so that everybody concerned becomes familiar with the changes being proposed. In India, there is a clear need for giving such advance notice on impending procedural legislative changes rather than bring such changes into force through Finance Bill/Act suddenly. (iv) We also find from our dealing with several cases relating to procedural changes that no provisions are being made for dealing with transitional cases. It would be proper for providing legal measur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
