Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Surat - ... vs M/S Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. on 7 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(132)ELT392(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member(T)
1. This is an application for early hearing on the ground that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. We have heard Shri Willingdon Christian, advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue.
2. The authorization in its entirety is reproduced below:-
"AUTHORISATION Whereas in exercise of the power vested in the central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, under Section 35-E(I) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Board has called for the records of the proceedings in respect of M/s. Shreeram Alkalies & Chemicals, Jhagadia Dist. Bharuch in which the Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I passed the Order-in-Original No. 12/MP/98 dated 29.10.1998.
And whereas upon examination of the said records, the Board has found that the said order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and customs, Surat-I is not correct, proper and legal and merits filing of an appeal.
I, therefore, direct the Superintendent (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Hdqrs., Surat-I t make an application to the Hon'ble CEGAT, Mumbai under the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 35-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for exarnining and determining the points arising out of the order specified in the specified in the grounds of appeal against the Order-in-Original NO.12/MP/98 dated 29.10.98 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I. (Gurbax Singh) Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I"
3. Copy of the order of the Board passed under section 35E(I) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not appended. Where such an order is made, it is the Commissioner who is entitled to file the appeal. That power cannot be further delegated by the Commissioner. In the case of Malhotra Steel Products vs. CCE(2000(38)RLT 480) the CEGAT had interpreted the wording "such authority" and had dismissed the appeal filed by ann office subordinate to the Commissioner. The same view was held in the judgment reported in 1999(34) RLT 794. In that judgment the Tribunal had relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M.M. Rubber Co.1991 (55)ELT 289.
4. The facts before us being identical, we hold that the present appeal has been filed without authority of law and therefore dismiss it.
(Dictated in Court)