Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.R.A.Perfumery Works Pvt.Ltd on 27 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.Ex.Ap.667/06
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CCE/Kol-I/No.03/05 dated 20.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-I.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI S.K. GAULE, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-I
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s.R.A.Perfumery Works Pvt.Ltd.
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri S.Misra, Addl.Commr.(A.R.) for the Revenue Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Consultant for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri S.K. Gaule, Member(Technical) Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:- 27.06.2012 Date of Pronouncement :- 27.06.2012 ORDER NO.
Per Shri S.K.Gaule.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Revenue field this appeal against Order-in-Original No.CCE/Kol-I/No.03/05 dated 20.09.2005 whereby ld.Commissioner has dropped the proceedings initiated by show cause notice No.V(Ch.33)(15)18-CE/Cal-I/2000 dated 18.01.2000.
3. At the outset Shri S.P.Siddhanta, consultant appearing for the respondent pointed out that review order in this case has not been passed in terms of provision of section 35E of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has drawn our attention to review order wherein it is recorded that one of the member of committee of Chief Commissioners disagreed and found the aforesaid order as acceptable. As per provisions of section 35E review order has to be passed by committee of Chief Commissioner whereas in this case the review order has been passed only by one Chief Commissioner instead of committee of Chief Commissioners. 4.1 We find that one of the Chief Commissioners of the committee has recorded the following :-
The Chief Commissioner of central Excise, Kolkata, one of the members of the Reviewing Committee, found the aforesaid order as acceptable. 4.2 We also find that only one Chief Commissioner has signed the review order. In these circumstances the review order is not correct as per the provisions of section 35E and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. Hence, dismissed as not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) (D.M.MISRA) (S.K. GAULE) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) sm 3 Appeal No.Ex.Ap.667/06