TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE, Delhi-I v. Kundalia Industries reported in [2012 (8) TMI 789 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of CCE, Delhi-III v. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2009 (12) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA], it is held that mere appending of signatures on the opinion of lower officers, by itself, is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 35B. As such, we, by following the precedent decisions, hold that the Revenue’s appeal is not valid – Decided against the Revenue. - Appeal No. 1895 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri R.K. Verma, DR For the Respondent: Ms. Sukriti D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the impugned order was examined by the Inspector and Superintendent on 18.5.05 and it was noted as under: In view of above submissions, order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case does not appear to be legal and proper, hence is not acceptable. The Hon ble Commissioner may like to file an appeal in the matter on the grounds mentioned above, if deemed fit. Put up for perusal and orders please. Draft Statement of facts and Grounds of appeal are put up for approval please. Authorization letter in respect of Additional Commissioner (Review), Central Excise Hqrs. Indore is also put up for signature please. Thereafter the file was placed before the higher officer, who recorded as under:- The above notes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per. As the noting from the relevant files reveal that after receipt of the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the matter was examined in the department at the level of Superintendent (Rev) and Asstt. Commissioner (Rev) who made notes giving reasons as to why the appeal should be filed. The Committee of Commissioners simply appended their signatures on the aforesaid notes, which fact shows that there was no meeting of the aforesaid two officers to consider the case. The record also does not disclose that these two officers applied their mind to the issue and recorded any opinion as per the requirement of Section 35(B). As such, the Hon ble Delhi High Court by observing that there should be a meaningful consideration which should be ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was made. 4. A perusal of the record shows that firstly there is no opinion expressed by the Committee of Commissioner of Customs; secondly the Tribunal does not seem to be oblivious of the aforesaid fact. The observations made by the Tribunal are clear that in the absence of order of authorisation no appeal was competent. According to sub section 2 of Section 129A of the Act a Committee of Commissioner of Customs may file an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) if it is of the opinion that such an order is not legal or proper. In our view there is no evaluation/examination by the Committee of Commissioner Customs in respect of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to the formation of opinion by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
