ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. These four appeals and two miscellaneous applications for hearing the case early are disposed of by this common order inasmuch as the issue for determination in these four appeals is the same.
2. The issue is whether the Commissioner, Central Excise can exercise a power vested in him under Sub-section (3) of Section 35E to review orders and direct filing of appeals.
3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why service tax should not be levied and collected from them. The show cause notices were dropped pursuant to the Apex Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bharti’s case reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365. The Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reviewed the order passed by the lower authorities directing them to file appeals under Sub-section (3) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act. Pursuant to this direction the authorities below filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeals of the Department. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the captioned appeals.
4. These directions to file the appeals were issued by the Commissioner consequent to enactment of Finance Bill, 2000. The contention of the appellants was that Clauses 112, 113 of the Finance Bill, 2000 and Sections 116 & 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 do not authorise the Commissioner to demand the amount of service tax from the persons who had failed to pay it in terms of dropping of show cause notice. It was also contended by them that as per Sections 83 & 84 of this service tax, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the orders passed by the authorities below and therefore, the appeals filed pursuant to such directions were not maintainable as they were without jurisdiction and the orders passed by the Commissioner in such cases are illegal and without jurisdiction. It was, therefore, prayed that appeals of the appellants assessee may be allowed.
5. Shri Atul Dikshit, learned SDR reiterated the findings of the authorities below.
6. We have heard the rival submissions . We have perused the various Sections of the Finance Act, 2000 and the retrospective amendments.
7. In the instant case, we note that service tax was imposed under Finance Act, 1994 on certain services. The assessees went up to the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati cited above held certain sections ultra vires. Finance Act, 2000 amended the sections retrospectively and therefore, those demands which were dropped consequent to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati, were revived.
8. In the instant case, we further note that the orders were reviewed by the Commissioner who directed the subordinate officer to file appeals.
9. On perusal of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, we note that this section does not empower the Commissioner to review the orders passed by the authorities below under him and issue directions to them to file appeals. Thus, the directions to file appeals are without jurisdiction and illegal. In the circumstances, the orders passed pursuant to such directions which are illegal are a nullity in law. In these circumstances, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the assessees. Four appeals and two miscellaneous applications for hearing the appeals early are disposed of in the above terms.