CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Rohtak vs Elegant Enterprises, Sonepat and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 July 2015 · Citation: (2015) 323 ELT 333

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.J. Vazifdar, A.C.J · Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 — Section 35, 35A, 35B(2) · Customs Act, 1962 — Section 130
CASE NUMBER
CEA Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 71 of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 381 words

S.J. Vazifdar, Acting C.J—We are informed that the appeals are against a common order and are identical in all respects. We, therefore, dispose of all the appeals by this common order and judgment.

2.

These appeals have been filed against the order of the CESTAT dismissing the appellants'' appeals on the ground that the appellants had not complied with the provisions of Section 35B(2) of The Central Excise Act, 1944. The said Section reads thus:-

"35B. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.- (2) The Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise may, if it is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on its behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order."

3.

It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. that the compliance with the Section is necessary and that in the event of the failure to comply with the same, no appeal is deemed to have been instituted in the eyes of law. The Division Bench, in that case, dealt with Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is pari materia to Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with which we are concerned.

4.

The Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra Vs. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills, AIR 1999 SC 554 : (1998) 62 ECC 1 : (1998) 78 ECR 257 : (1998) 101 ELT 5 : (1998) 5 JT 629 : (1998) 5 SCC 361 : (1998) AIRSCW 3872 held that the provisions of Section 35B(2) are clearly required as a prerequisite to the direction to any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal. As no such direction was produced, the appeal was dismissed.

5.

In the present case also, Section 35B(2) has not been complied with. The documents tendered across the Bar during the hearing of these appeals also do not indicate compliance of the provisions of Section 35B(2) of the Act.

6.

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.