Case Law Details
Brief of the case
In the present case a question of law was referred by a Larger Bench in order to resolve the conflict between the views taken by two separate Division Benches of this court in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. L.R. Sharma, 2014 (4) AD (Delhi) 733 (hereinafter referred to as LR Sharma-I) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 Vs. Kundalia Industries, 2012 (279) E.L.T. 351 (Del). Accordingly, a Larger Banch was constituted in which it was held that the act of appending of signatures by the members of the Committee of Commissioners, would suffice, as long as, the record placed before them, contains the necessary material and the reasons for approving the action to institute the appeal. Also, no meeting or consultation of Commissioners is required u/s 86(2) of Finance Act, 1994.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, was issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2010 in which, allegations levelled were of the following nature : (i). that it had not complied with the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during the period 2008-2009; (ii). that it had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit on services which were not used for providing taxable output services; (iii). there was non-payment of service tax on excess baggage; and (iv). lastly, it had failed to provide information and data with respect to value of air tickets purchased prior to 01.05.2006 which, in fact, were used on or after 01.05.2006. The adjudication order dated was reviewed u/s Section 86(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The review decision was taken to file an appeal before the Tribunal. In the first instance, the Inspector (Review) in the concerned department of the Revenue prepared a note on 11.03.2013, which was, put up before the Superintendent (Review) on the same date. The said note articulated, in detail, the grounds for challenging the order of the adjudicating authority. The Superintendent (Review), appears to have seen and appended his signatures to the said note, as indicated above on 11.03.2013, itself. The said note was put up before the Deputy Chief Commissioner in the Chief Commissioner’s unit. This note was put up before the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 11.04.2013 who, independently, came to a similar view, which is, that the adjudication order had to be reviewed for reasons stated therein. It is on record that a Review Order no.24/2013 dated 26.04.2013 which is a typed note, which bears, the signatures of both Chief commissioner of Central Excise (Delhi Zone) and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise (Chandigarh Zone). A preliminary objection was taken by the assessee that it was not maintainable, as there was no application of mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners in considering the draft review order, which recommended, institution of the appeal against the adjudication order.
Contention of the Revenue
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
