Commissioner's Review Committees Reconstituted - Mumbai IV replaced by CST-I, Mumbai
Notification No. 25/2005-CE(NT) which was issued to constitute Committee of Commissioners to supervise and exercise their powers in terms of Section 35B(2) over jurisdictions of respective Commissioner (Appeals) across the country, was further amended to replace ‘Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV' with ‘Commissioner of Service Tax I, Mumbai' at S. No. 45 of the said notification. Entry number (2) thereof is also omitted.
For all these days of delay in issuing this Notification, the appeals process would have got derailed or withheld which would probably result in delayed filing of appeals before the CESTAT. On the contrary, what if in the intervening period, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I acted as a Committee by himself. Would it be valid and legal?
In CCE, Belapur vs. Coramandel Fertilizers Ltd 2008-TIOL-366-CESTAT-MUM it was held by the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT that a single Commissioner wearing two caps does not constitute a committee. A similar decision was taken earlier by the Kolkata Bench of CESTAT in CCE , Bhubaneswhar & Ors vs. Indian Plastics Ltd & Ors - 2007-TIOL-2216-CESTAT-KOL. So if any decision is taken by Mumbai-I Commissioner acting as a single member Committee in terms of Section 35B(2) would render such decisions illegal.
Notification No. , Dated: April 8, 2010