CCE Vs. MANOHARA SARASWATHY GLASS WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the department against order dated 30.6.2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) WHEN the appeal was taken up for final hearing, learned consultant for the respondents raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that the authorization dated 15.9.05 made by the Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act for filing the appeal was not valid in law inasmuch as, according to him, the grounds for the appeal were not explored by the Committee. This submission was based on a recital in the authorization letter, which reads as under: And whereas, the Committee is of the opinion that the Order -in -Appeal is not legal and proper for the reasons stated in the grounds of appeal enclosed to the memorandum of appeal

(3.) LD . consultant wondered, how could the Committee on 15.9.05 examine the grounds of appeal filed on 10.10.2005. He meant to say that the Review Committee decided to direct filing of appeal without examining the merits of the case. The original record of proceedings of the department was produced by SDR as requisitioned by the Bench for a scrutiny. These records indicated that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli, one of the Members of the Review Committee, studied the case records and noted that the Order -in -Appeal was not legal and proper. This note is dated 2.9.2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai, the other Member of the Committee, examined the case and endorsed the view taken by his colleague. This was on 15.9.05. The authorization letter for filing the appeal was issued on the same date. The grounds of the appeal appears to have been framed on the basis of the nothings made by the Review Committee. Hence the preliminary objection raised by consultant was overruled and the appeal was taken up for hearing and disposal on merits.