COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SWASTIK PLYBOARD LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are applications for restoration of appeal filed by the Revenue. These appeals had earlier been dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 58191 -58195/2013 dated 7 -11 -2013, (2014 (299) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. - Del.)) on the ground that while at the time of filing the appeal by the Revenue on 8 -7 -2005 there was a provision that the appeal is required to be filed on the basis of authorization given by Committee of Commissioners under Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 mentioning the grounds as to why the impugned order is not legal and proper and also authorizing a Central Excise officer to file the appeal against that order, no such authorization is on record. The ROA applications stand filed by the Revenue on the ground that while there is no formal order under Section 35B(2), the proposal to file appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order had been placed before the Committee of Commissioners and the Committee had accepted that proposal and in this regard copy of the note -sheet of the file has been produced. Heard both sides.

(2.) MS . Shweta Bector, learned DR, pleaded for restoration of the Revenue's appeal placing reliance on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of CCE, Delhi -III v. Om Sairam Trading Company ( : 2009 (243) E.L.T. 617 (Tri. - Del.)) wherein it was held that Revenue's appeal filed on the basis of review order as recorded on the notesheet order is valid and no separate authorization is required. She, therefore, pleaded that Revenue's appeal may be restored as it is a case of clandestine removal.