TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance with the provisions of Section 35B - Following decision of CCE Noida vs. V S Exim Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 269 of 2006 - A/FO/55385/2013-Ex(Br) - Dated:- 11-1-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri R.K. Verma, DR For the Respondent: Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. When the appeal came up earlier, on 6.11.12, learned advocate appearing for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable because review authorization has been given by one Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, NOIDA does not appear proper and legal. If approved, an appeal against the said order may be filed in CESTAT, New Delhi. Thereafter the file was placed before the Joint Commissioner, who recorded as under:- In view of A B C and D marked at pre page, we may prefer appeal against the O-I-A referred on pre page Thereafter the file was placed before the concerned officer who wrote the following note: Kindly refer to the notes proceedings, order-in-appeal 108/CE/APPL/NOIDA/05 dated 28.10.05 is put up to the Committee of Commissioner for preferring filing the appeal before CESTAT. Thereafter file stand simply signed by two Commissioners on two different dates. 5. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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 grounds of appeal is that the opinion of the Committee of Commissioner of Customs was available o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the matter of CCE, Delhi-III v. B.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
