Notification for appointment of Chief Commissioners – yet another Departmental Appeal dismissed in Kolkata CESTAT
The Hon'ble CESTAT observed,
We find that there is no Notification in the Official Gazette appointing either Shri Amar Singh or Shri P.N.Vittal Dass as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise for Ranchi and Bhubaneswar Zones. Such a requirement flows from the statutory provisions contained in Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This issue has been gone into in detail by us the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III and others vs. M/s. Nafar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. and Others - Order No.M -242/A-915-917/ Kol /2008 dated 04.09.08 = , in which, for the detailed reasons stated therein, we have held that unless a person is appointed by a Notification in the official Gazette he cannot be deemed to have been vested with the statutory powers to act as a Chief Commissioner of Central Excise under the Central Excise Law. Consequently, such a person cannot also exercise the powers under the Finance Act, 1994 dealing in Service Tax matters, as such powers are exercisable only by a person appointed as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise in the manner known to the law. In the present case, we have been shown only office Order No.186 /2007 dated 26.07.07 in respect of Shri Amar Singh and Office Order No.85 /08 dated 29.04.2008 in respect of Shri P.N.Vittal Dass ; but the Department has not produced and Notification published in the official Gazette appointing either of them as Chief Commissioner Central Excise. The arguments advanced by learned Jt. C.D.R. , Dr. Gautam Ray are nothing new and these have been duly considered by us in the case of M/s. Nafar Chandra Jute Mills (cited supra). Learned Jt. C.D.R. states that the matter is under examination of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, but he has no information as to when such examination would be concluded and remedial action would be taken. In the meantime, in the absence of any Gazette Notification appointing the two signatories to the impugned Review Order as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, following our earlier order in the case of M/ s.Nafar Chandra Jute Mills (cited supra), we have no option but to hold that the direction to file the present Appeal has been issued without having the necessary statutory power and jurisdiction and the same is, therefore, non- est in the eyes of law. Consequently, the appeal filed pursuant to such direction is not maintainable and the same is rejected at the threshold without going into the merits of the case.
As we had mentioned earlier, if the Government does not wake up fast all the appeals in all the Benches of the Tribunal will be dismissed. It will be very difficult to restore the dismissed appeals. Will the Board act soon?