By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 06, 2016: THESE are Revenue appeals filed against the orders-in-appeal passed by the CCE (Appeals), Goa.

Revenue has filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

The Revenue submits that the delay is for the reason that initially the Review Committee of Commissioners accepted the impugned orders. However, thereafter, the Review Committee reviewed its own decision and ordered to file appeal in terms of Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The AR further contended that the decision to review is an administrative decision and therefore it can be modified /reviewed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-1645-HC-DEL-ST-LB and also the Madras High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-1208-HC-MAD-CUS.

The Counsel's appearing for the parties stated that the Committee of Commissioners once having passed the review order under Section 35E(1) of the CEA, 1944 cannot review its own order. Reliance is placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell International Services India P. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-982-HC-KAR-ST.

After considering the submissions, the Bench observed that in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Japan Airlines (supra), the decision rendered by the Committee of Commissioners is an administrative function and the same can be changed/reviewed by the Committee. It was also observed that the Madras High Court ruling in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has noted that that there is no explicit provision in law to prevent from constituting a fresh review committee for deciding the matter which has already been decided.

The Karnataka High Court decision cited by the respondents was distinguished on facts. Inasmuch as it was observed that in the said case the facts were that decision to accept the order was taken by the Committee of Commissioners but the Chief Commissioner, on his own, felt that the acceptance of the order by the Committee of Commissioners is not proper and he ordered review of the said case again by Committee of Commissioners and it was in these circumstances, the High Court of Karnataka held that review by the Committee of its earlier decision at the instance of Chief Commissioner is one without the authority of law.

In fine, the CESTAT held that a fresh decision by the same Committee is valid in law.

The delay was condoned and the COD applications were allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-60-CESTAT-MUM)