9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Commissioners is invalid as both the Chief Commissioners comprising the Committee have taken different views One of them has held the impugned Order to be acceptable, whereas the other Chief Commissioner has held the same to be not acceptable. Under the statute, only when the Committee comes to a conclusion holding an Order to be not legal and proper, the Committee can authorise filing an appeal before the Tribunal. When the opinion of the Committee is divided as in this case, the legal requirement is not met and no appeal can be entertained by this Tribunal on the basis of the opinion of only one member of the Committee holding the impugned Order to be not acceptable. Hence, we have no alternative but to reject the authorisation given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant-companies have not made the requisite investment, as they have not got any machinery installed. The contention of the appellant-companies that they have paid the money for the machinery and hence, have invested in purchase of the machinery, installation of which required time for delivery and installation, does not appear to have been considered by the Chief Commissioner's Committee. 6. After hearing both sides at length and after examining the provisions of the impugned Notification and the impugned Orders in great detail, we are constrained to observe that for implementation of a Notification such as this which is heavily dependent on the decision of a Committee headed by the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e such as this relating to implementation of the impugned Notification can himself adjudicate the case exercising the adjudication powers of the Commissioner of Central Excise who is subordinate to him, taking recourse to this provision. We are, therefore, of the view that these cases are required to be remanded to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong himself for deciding the matter afresh. We order accordingly. He shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant-companies before passing a fresh Order. If he so wishes and if it is necessary, he may also re-convene a meeting of the Committee prescribed under the impugned Notification and the appellants may be heard before taking a fresh decision as to whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
