9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Chief Commissioner decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal - once the Review Committee has taken a decision not to file an appeal before CESTAT, then the said Committee becomes functus officio - once the Committee decided to accept the OIA, the matter ends then and there. There is no legal provision for sitting in judgments over the decision of the Review Committee – delay in filing appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Committee of Commissioners is not proper in view of the fact that a similar issue was pending before the Tribunal in Appeal No. ST/115/2008. Consequent to the decision of the Chief Commissioner, a second Review was undertaken by the Committee of Commissioners on 31.07.2008. In the second review, there was difference of opinion between the Commissioners. Thereafter, the Chief Commissioner decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. This issue was the subject matter of a decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Tuticorin Vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (81) RLT 301 (CESTAT-Che.)=2007 (216) ELT 86 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein in para 21, it has been held that once the Review Committee has taken a decision not to file an appeal before CESTAT, then the said Committee becomes functus officio. The observations of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other authority to sit over the review committee's decision. It is clear from the record that the Chief Commissioner has played a role in influencing the said Commissioners to, recall their order passed as Review Committee Members dropping the matter and to accept the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned order. It is very clear from the record that the Review committee has been influenced by the Chie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g final order. Registry Bangalore to return the files to the Registry Chennai to place the matter before Original Bench for passing the final order." 5. In the said decision, the majority view is that such a second review is not possible. We are in agreement with the view expressed in the said decision cited supra. Hence, in terms of the above decision, we dismiss the COD application. As a res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
