JUDGMENT : Amitava Roy, J. 1. In challenge is the judgment and order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zone Bench, Kolkata, (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal No. 226/2006, Excise Appeal No. 265/2006, Excise Appeal No. 362/2006 and Excise Appeal No. 672/2006 disposing of the same thereby. Whereas the first three appeals preferred by the respondent assessees were allowed, the one filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds as recorded therein. We have heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.K. Medhi and Mr. S. Dutta, Advocates for the assessees. 2. The backdrop of facts in brief needs to be outlined to better comprehend the rival arguments. Three units of the respondent Company which is an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, (for short hereafter referred to as the Act) are involved in the present proceeding, one whereof is located at Guwahati in the State of Assam and two others at Agartala in the State of Tripura. The one located at Guwahati is owned by the respondent No. 1 and the two at Agartala by the respondent No. 2. The respondent Companies are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala including tobacco categorised under Tariff 2404.49 contemplated within the purview of the notification No. 69/2003-C.E. dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure B to the memo of appeal) and entitled to the exemption as referred to therein subject to the terms and conditions prescribed thereby. In terms thereof, to avail the exemption, the sum of basic excise duty, special excise duty and additional excise duty to be paid is required to be utilised by the manufacturer only for the investment in plant and machinery in their said manufacturing units. For the relevant periods as would be detailed hereinbelow the respondent units had been claiming benefits under the said notification which they assert were consequent upon a meticulous compliance of the pre-requisites as ordained by the same. The claims of exemption under the aforementioned notification and as required thereby from time to time have to be scrutinised by a Committee nomenclatured as Investment Appraisal Committee (for short hereafter referred to as the Committee) composition whereof is also enjoined by it. The claims of exemption under the aforementioned notification and as required thereby from time to time have to be scrutinised by a Committee nomenclatured as Investment Appraisal Committee (for short hereafter referred to as the Committee) composition whereof is also enjoined by it. According to the parties, the meetings of the said Committee for the relevant quarters, though held beyond the stipulated time schedule, had examined the claim(s) for exemption therefor and varying amounts were accepted as final investments as well as secured payments for which certificates final and provisional were issued. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to dilate on factual details. Suffice it to mention that the aforementioned Committee did not, following such a scrutiny accept the respondents' claim for exemption in full. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong thereafter issued show cause notices to the three corresponding units of the respondent Companies asking them to show cause as to why the excise duty as mentioned therein would not be recovered from them under the provision of the Act, cited therein. The same was duly responded to on merits where after the aforementioned authority by orders dated 30.1.2006 passed in the independent proceedings confirmed the demand of varying amounts. 4. The Committee, however, vis-a-vis the dated 30.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, made further scrutiny and though the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, found the determination made to be in order, the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, differed and directed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong to apply to the Tribunal for correct determination of the issues framed by him. Whereas the respondent Companies being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.1.2006 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, preferred the appeal(s) Excise Appeal No. 226/2006, Excise Appeal No. 265/2006, Excise Appeal No. 362/2006 before the learned Tribunal, the Revenue preferred Excise Appeal No. 672/2006. By the judgment and order dated 26.3.2008, impugned herein, the three appeals of the respondent assesses were allowed and that of the Revenue was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, is in appeal before us. This Court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. By the judgment and order dated 26.3.2008, impugned herein, the three appeals of the respondent assesses were allowed and that of the Revenue was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, is in appeal before us. This Court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal committed error in remanding the matter to the Chief Commissioner instead of the Commissioner of Central Excise for adjudication because under the statute the Chief Commissioner has no adjudication power. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal committed error in dismissing the appeal filed by the department because in terms of the Circular No. 825/2/2006-CX dated 6.2.2006 an appeal is maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Central Excise on the basis of the direction given by anyone of the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise. 5. Before we advert to the arguments advanced, it would be expedient to cull out the grounds on which the learned Tribunal had made its determinations in the four appeals. According to it, the authorisation made by one Chief Commissioner of the Committee for preferring the appeal in the event of a difference of opinion between the two members thereof had no sanction of law and, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was not sustainable on that count alone. Vis-a-vis the appeals of the assesses, it held the view that the Committee did neither meet within the prescribed time schedule nor accorded a hearing to them (assesses) before deciding on the issues involved and arrived at a decision that they did not make the requisite investment as they had not been able to install the machineries in question. It observed that in absence of a scrutiny by the Committee as contemplated by the notification involved, the proceedings initiated by the subordinate authority i.e. Commissioner of Excise, Shillong, were "mockery of quasi judicial process". The impugned orders dated 30.1.2006 were thus interfered with and having regard to the definition of Central Excise Officer as contained in Section 2(b) of the Act, the matter was remanded to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, for a decision afresh. The impugned orders dated 30.1.2006 were thus interfered with and having regard to the definition of Central Excise Officer as contained in Section 2(b) of the Act, the matter was remanded to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, for a decision afresh. Liberty was also granted to this authority to reconvene a meeting of the Committee and to offer an opportunity of hearing to the assesses before taking a fresh decision on the question as to whether they had met the requirement of investment or not as contemplated by the notification. 6. Mr. Paul has urged with reference to the Circular bearing No. 825/2/2006-CX dated 6.2.2006 that as at the relevant point of time, in the event of a difference in opinion between the two members of the Committee, an appeal pursuant to the view taken by one member in favour thereof was maintainable in law, the learned Tribunal was patently in error in dismissing the appeal of the revenue construing the same to be unauthorised. The learned Central Government Counsel, however, has candidly admitted that by an amendment introduced by Finance Act w.e.f. 10.5.2008, a proviso to Section 35E has been added making it incumbent for such Committee to state the point or points on which the members thereof differ to the Board of Central Excise and that if the Board is of the opinion that a decision on the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise was not legal or proper, may direct him or any other Commissioner to apply to the Tribunal for the determination of the points arising on such decision or order. 7. Mr. Paul has therefore submitted that as the proviso incorporated by the amendment was not in the Statute book when the Revenue had filed the Appeal, the decision of the Tribunal dismissing the same as not maintainable is obviously illegal. With reference to the pleadings of the appellant as well as the official records, Mr. Paul has further argued that as the meetings of the Committee belatedly though had been held inter alia scrutinising the assesses claim for exemption under the aforementioned notification, the premise on which their appeals were allowed is also non est and on that count as well the impugned decision ought to be interfered with Mr. Paul has further argued that as the meetings of the Committee belatedly though had been held inter alia scrutinising the assesses claim for exemption under the aforementioned notification, the premise on which their appeals were allowed is also non est and on that count as well the impugned decision ought to be interfered with Mr. Paul has amongst others produced the final certificates issued by the Committee on a verification of the assessee's claim for exemption under the above notification. 8. Mr. Bhattacharyya while endorsing the view taken by the learned Tribunal vis-à-vis the appeal of the Revenue has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision to Section 35Eof the Act and has contended that having regard to the state of law on the day on which the present appeal is being disposed of no fault therewith can be attached. Referring to the pleadings of the assesses in the appeal in details as well as the documents produced before this Court for its perusal, the learned Sr. Counsel has pleaded that as the learned Tribunal had proceeded on a wrong factual premise namely failure of the Committee to hold its meetings and had thus refrained from deciding the appeals of the assesses on merit, it is a fit case where the matter ought to be remitted to it (Tribunal) for a fresh disposal. Mr. Bhattacharyya has urged upon this Court also to dwell upon the aspect as to whether secured payments made by the assesses towards installment of plants and machineries ought to be accepted as final investments under the notification while examining their claim for exemption thereunder. 9. We have accorded our anxious consideration to the submissions made as well as the materials available before us. Though the circular dated 6.2.2006 in clear terms permits an appeal to be filed before the learned Tribunal at the instance of only one member of the Committee in the event of a difference in opinion between the two constituents thereof and that the circular held the field on the date of institution of the appeal by the revenue, in view of the amendment to Section 35E incorporated w.e.f. 10.5.2008, we do not feel persuaded to sustain the plea in favour of the maintainability of the said appeal. Having regard to the state of law as on date, which enjoins a procedure whereunder the Committee in case of difference of any opinion of its members has to state the point or points of such difference and make a reference to the Board of Central Excise which in turn if of the opinion that the decision or order of the concerned Commissioner of Central Excise is not legal or proper may direct such Commissioner or any other Commissioner to apply to the Tribunal, the plea of maintainability of the appeal of the Revenue is unconvincing. The enjoinment of law as on date being clear and unequivocal and as the appeal of the Revenue is not in compliance thereof we have no hesitation to reject the contention of the appellant on this count. 10. In order to acquaint this Court with the relevant facts, the learned Sr. Counsel has produced a document in a tabular form containing the essential particulars vis-a-vis the relevant aspects bearing on the claims of exemption. For ready reference this Court considers it appropriate to set out the same as a part of the order. Unit Relevant Quarter Total Duty Foregone (Exemption Claimed) Interim Certificate dt. 11.4.2009 Final Certificate dt. 6.2.2005 Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Guwahati 1.10.2003-31.12.2003 Rs. 8, 59, 52, 673/- Rs. 60, 55, 390/- accepted as final investment, Rs. 7, 98, 97, 283/- accepted provincially on the basis of secured payments made. Rs. 28, 28, 000/- accepted as final investment. Investment of remainingamount of Rs. 7, 70, 79, 283/- denied for non-installation of plant and machineries. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Guwahati 25.08.2003 – 30.09.2003 Rs. 2, 13, 70, 927/- Rs. 3, 76, 818/- accepted as final investment Rs. 2, 09, 94, 154/- accepted provincially on the basis of secured payments made. (Interim certificate not on recored) Investment of Rs. 2, 09, 94, 154/- denied for non-installation of plant and machineries. 1.10.2003-31.12.2003 Rs. 4, 34, 15, 463/- Rs. 5, 41, 776/- accepted as final investment. Rs. 4, 28, 73, 687/- accepted provincially on the basis of secured payments made. Rs. 28, 496/- accepted as final investment. Investment remaining amount of Rs. 4, 28, 45, 191/- denied for non-installation of plant and machineries. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Guwahati 28.08.2003 - 30.09.2003 Rs. 10, 23, 414/- Rs. 10, 23, 414/- accepted as final investment subject to verification. Rs. Rs. 4, 28, 73, 687/- accepted provincially on the basis of secured payments made. Rs. 28, 496/- accepted as final investment. Investment remaining amount of Rs. 4, 28, 45, 191/- denied for non-installation of plant and machineries. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Guwahati 28.08.2003 - 30.09.2003 Rs. 10, 23, 414/- Rs. 10, 23, 414/- accepted as final investment subject to verification. Rs. 10, 23, 414/- accepted as final (Final Certificate Note on record) 1.10.2003 – 31.12.2003 Rs. 4, 24, 67, 468/- Rs. 2, 81, 23, 273/- accepted as final investment. Rs. 1, 43, 44, 195/- accepted provincially on the basis of secured payments made. Investment of Rs. 1, 43, 44, 195/- denied for non-installation of plant and machineries. (Final Certificate not on record) 11. Noticeably the parties are one that the Committee, belatedly though had held its meetings as contemplated under the notification dated 25.8.03 in course of which it had examined the respondents' claim for exemption thereunder and had recorded its decisions in connection therewith. It is on the basis of the said decisions which demonstrate that a portion of such claim(s) had been rejected by the Committee on reasons recorded by it that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, had initiated independent proceedings under Section 11A of the Act and had arrived at conclusions aggrieved by which the assessees had preferred their appeals before the learned Tribunal. The attention of this Court has not been drawn to any provision of the notification or any guidelines or administrative norms to the effect that the proceeding of a Committee, if held beyond the time fixed, would for all intents and purposes and on that count alone be construed as non est. In other words, the proceedings of the Committee delayed though could not thus have been treated to be nonexistent by the learned Tribunal so as to justify a direction to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise to decide the issues afresh and to further authorise him to reconvene a meeting of the said Committee before taking a fresh decision on the entitlement of the respondents assessees vis-a-vis their claim for exemption from excise duty. To put it differently, the disclosures from the official records, in our estimate, render the very basic premise of the directions of the learned Tribunal to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise to decide the issues denovo by him dehors the records and, therefore, cannot be sustained. To put it differently, the disclosures from the official records, in our estimate, render the very basic premise of the directions of the learned Tribunal to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise to decide the issues denovo by him dehors the records and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The assumption of the learned Tribunal on the basis of which the operative directions have been issued thus being unfounded, the direction issued by it to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise to undertake the exercise as mentioned in the impugned judgment and order has to be adjudged untenable. 12. In view of the conclusions recited hereinabove, we sustain the decision of the learned Tribunal vis-a-vis the appeal of the revenue. However, the determination made by the Tribunal qua the appeals filed by the assessee is interfered with. Significantly the learned Tribunal in allowing the appeals of the assessees by the judgment and order impugned herein had not examined their contentions on merit pertaining to their claim for exemption from excise duty to which they asserted were entitled under the notification dated 25.8.03. The annulment of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal to this extent therefore would have no bearing whatsoever on the merit of the rival assertions of the parties an the issue of exemption. The learned Tribunal following such remand would scrutinise the claim of the assesses on all relevant aspects in the background of the provisions of the Act and the notification dated 25.8.03 in particular as well as all contemporaneous records bearing thereon and record its decision after according all reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties, if pray, be allowed to file additional pleadings and records bearing on the issues under scrutiny if considered appropriate and necessary by the learned Tribunal. 13. Though in course of the arguments before us, the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessees had assertively pleaded that secured payments made by them (assessees) towards plants and machineries in their units ought to be accepted as final investments therefor, delay in the installation thereof notwithstanding, as their claim for exemption for excise duty as a whole is being remanded to the learned Tribunal, it would examine and record its decision on this aspect of the matter as well needless to say, by applying the aforementioned criteria as outlined by this Court. Considering the relevant period(s) for which the assessees' claim for exemption under the notification, is pending finalisation, we consider it appropriate to fix a time frame for the learned Tribunal with a request to it to adhere thereto in disposing of their appeals on merits. On an estimate of all aspects of the matter, we ordain a period of 60 days here from for completion and hearing of the appeal and disposal thereof by the learned Tribunal. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court therefore stand answered accordingly. 14. At this juncture Mr. Bhattacharyya prays for an interim protection to restrain the Revenue from taking coercive action/steps against the respondents assesses pending the disposal of their appeals by the learned Tribunal. As we have remitted the issues to the Tribunal for decision on merits, it would be open for it to consider and pass appropriate orders if a request is made to this effect before it. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.