By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 03, 2014: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).

The respondent raised an objection that in this case the authorization obtained to file the appeal is undated, therefore, the authorization is not proper and so the appeal is required to be dismissed.

Pursuant to this objection, the case records were sought and it was observed that the Committee of Commissioners constituted of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III and Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum; that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III approved on 23.6.2006 to file the appeal and the file was sent through fax to CCE Belgaum for approval.

Further, in the note sheet of the Central Excise, Belgaum it is noted as under:-

"Receipt of authorization to file appeal by fax from Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-III may please be perused".

The Bench observed that the Commissioner, Belgaum put his signature on 30.6.2006 on the note sheet but it is not clear as to whether the relevant documents for consideration of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum have been produced before him or not& further the authorization is undated.

It was also noted that in the case of Commissioner Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing and Printing Works - 2008-TIOL-672-HC-AHM-CX it was held that it is not mere formality but the Review Committee has to arrive at the decision whether the impugned order is legal or proper or not and whether appeal is to be filed or not. Whereas in the case on hand,on perusal of the note sheet, it is found that there is no opinion made out by the Commissioners why the order in appeal is not legal and proper and why appeal is required to be filed& the signatures have been obtained merely by circulation of the file without appreciating the facts of the case.

The Bench further observed that the case laws cited by the AR are not relevant in view of the facts obtaining in the present case and that there was no finding by the Committee of Commissioners and authorization was obtained merely circulation of file.

Holding that the authorization is not correct inasmuch as the appeal filed by the Revenue is without authorization the same was dismissed.

(See 2014-TIOL-1670-CESTAT-MUM)