2000 (6) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Tribunal's requirements for completing records.
2. Legality of the appeal based on proper authorization.
3. Finalization of provisional assessment by the Superintendent of Central Excise.

Issue 1: Compliance with Tribunal's requirements for completing records
The Tribunal issued a Misc. Order directing the Commissioner to submit the original authorization signed by the jurisdictional Commissioner and a factual report on the finalization of the provisional assessment. The compliance report submitted by the ld. DR indicated that the authorization lacked a date, and the appeal filed by Revenue did not have proper authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appeal legally not entertainable due to the absence of a proper authorization.

Issue 2: Legality of the appeal based on proper authorization
The Tribunal noted that the original authorization submitted lacked a date, raising concerns about the validity of the appeal. The appeal filed on 21-6-1999 did not have a proper authorization as required by Section 35B(2) of the Act. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal could not be legally entertained due to the absence of a valid authorization at the time of filing.

Issue 3: Finalization of provisional assessment by the Superintendent of Central Excise
The Tribunal observed that the provisional assessment had been finalized by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kothavalsa Range, Division-II, Visakhapatanam, demanding duty payment from the respondents. However, the Tribunal found that the Superintendent did not have the legal authority under Rule 9B(5) to finalize the provisional assessment. As the assessment was remanded to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, the Superintendent's action was deemed not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal highlighted the failure of the Commissionerate to provide details on the finalization of the assessment by the Asstt. Commissioner, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and stay applications for non-maintainability under Section 35B(2).

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of proper authorization for filing appeals and the necessity of compliance with tribunal directives for completing records and finalizing assessments in accordance with the law.