Even if an order is in your favour, please read it carefully - otherwise you may lose what you have won
MORAL of the story: Even if an order is in your favour, please read it carefully and ensure that there are no apparent mistakes in the order - otherwise you may lose what you have won.
The story: As per Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, an appeal by the Department to the Tribunal against an order of a Commissioner (Appeals) has to be authorised by a Committee of two Commissioners.
In this particular case, the assessee alleges that Revenue has filed the appeal without the approval of the Committee of Commissioners. But instead of mentioning the Committee as "Committee of Commissioners", the Counsel mentioned it as, "Committee of CHIEF Commissioners".
The Tribunal accepted the plea of the Counsel and noted that:
After carefully considering the above contention of the learned advocate, we fully agree with the same. As per the law prevalent on the date of filing of appeal, the order in appeal was required to be placed before a committee of two Chief Commissioners. The said committee was required to form an opinion about the said order being legal and proper and it is only after the formation of opinion, directions were to be given to the Central Excise Officer to file an appeal their against before the Tribunal. In the present case there is no review order by the Committee of Chief Commissioners and the appeal stands filed by Commissioner himself. As such, we are of the view that the same being contrary to the legal position is not maintainable.
And so the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal.
This was an apparent mistake. Both the Counsel and Revenue mentioned Chief Commissioners instead of Commissioners . Apparently, the assessee kept quiet as they had won the case. But did they?
It was eureka for the Revenue and they rushed to the High Court with the question of Law;
"Whether Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 on account of non-compliance of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the committee did not consist of two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise?"
And the High Court answered the question of law in favour of Revenue - rightly so, as Review by two Chief Commissioners was not required and only review by two Commissioners was required.
However, the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal.
Now, what will happen? Can the revenue win the case before CESTAT?