Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Shree Ram Rayons on 26 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(106)ELT225(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. In Order No. 250/97-D, dated 18-3-1997, the Tribunal went into the validity of the authorisation given by the jurisdictional Collector under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. On examination of the authorisation as also on perusal of the note sheets produced by the Revenue, the Tribunal concluded that the authorisation was issued by the Additional Collector who had not applied his mind before giving the authorisation on the issue whether the order was proper or not. On this ground appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The present application from the Revenue states that there is a mistake apparent on the face of our order which requires to be corrected.
2. When the case was posted for hearing, none appeared for the applicants. We have heard Shri Sajan Narain, ld. Advocate for the respondents.
3. In the grounds of the application, the following judgments have been relied upon :-
1. Mahavir Products v. CCE reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 491.
2. CCE, Patna v. Bihar State Sugar Corporation reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 174.
3. CCE v. Electrols reported at 1990 (47) E.L.T. 463.
4. In the first named case it was held that the Additional Collector was at par with the Collector as per the definition under Rule 2(ii). We observe that the power given to the Collector to file an appeal against an order passed by Collector (Appeals) stems from Section 35B whereas the authority given under Rule 2(ii) extends only to the power invested in the Collector under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not under the Act. However, we will not dwell on this since we have not decided the appeal on this ground.
5. The next two citations lay down the ratio that it is not necessary for the Collector to state the reasons in writing as to how he arrived at the conclusion that an appeal is merited to be filed. This point is wrongly made. We, in our order, have nowhere held against the Revenue on this ground. As per the plain wording of Section 35B(2), the Collector has to go on record stating that the impugned order is not legal or proper. This much he has to say, even if he is not to give the reasons for this. We have recorded that the Additional Collector has not done so thereby rendering the appeal invalid. In a number of similar cases, the Tribunal has held in the like manner. The last reported case is CCE, Guntur v. Sahuwala Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. reported at 1997 (20) RLT 268. In making this order, the Tribunal held as under : -
"It may also be mentioned that the authorisation issued by the Collector is also defective in that it merely authorises an officer to appeal without indicating whether Collector has applied his mind to the issue before him and arrive at the finding that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not legal and proper. In the circumstances, we reject the Revenue's appeal and uphold the impugned order."
6. A Section or a Rule may lend itself to different interpretations by different fora. Because a particular interpretation is not acceptable to a litigant, it cannot be said that there exists an error in the judgment.
7. With these observations, we dismiss the application.