By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, OCT 30, 2013: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed with a delay of 6 days.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is misconceived since there is no application of mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners in considering the draft review order recommending filling of the appeal before the Tribunal against the adjudication order inasmuch as -

++ The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Zone merely signed on the draft review note, prepared by the Inspector (Review) on 11.3.2013, countersigned by the Superintendent (Review) on 11.3.2013, the deputy Commissioner in Chief Commissioner's unit on 5.4.2013, and the Additional Commissioner in C.C. unit on 11.4.2013, on 15.4.2013.

++ Similarly, the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh Zone on 26.4.2013 merely signed on the draft review note as prepared by sub-ordinate officers of his office.

The Bench found it apt to call for the original records pertaining to the above review file.

Thereafter the Bench made the following observation -

"…The record discloses that an elaborate note culminating in a recommendation for review was prepared by sub-ordinate officers of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi Zone and the Chief Commissioner, Delhi merely appended his signature without indicating even formal acceptance of the proposals recommending review and on the note similar exercise was replicated by the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh Zone."

Holding that the principle in this area is no longer res integra inasmuch as it has been held in the case of C.C.E., Delhi I vs. Kundalia Industries - (2011-TIOL-930-HC-DEL-CX) & C.S.T., Delhi Vs. L.R. Sharma & Co. - (2013-TIOL-944-CESTAT-DEL) that mere signing on draft note mechanically does not constitute sufficient compliance with the requirement of application of mind by the Commissioners comprising the Committee, to the twin requirements of the decision making process namely, due consideration of the material pertaining to the adjudication/appellate order and the appropriateness/desirability of preferring an appeal, the CESTAT concluded that in the present appeal the decision to review and prefer an appeal, recorded by the Committee of Chief Commissioners, Delhi and Chandigarh does not measure up to the standards spelt out in the earlier judgment of the Tribunal.

In fine, the appeal was held as defective and accordingly rejected.

This is one more way in which the Revenue loses cases!

(See 2013-TIOL-1613-CESTAT-DEL)