Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved against the dismissal of their Service Tax Appeal No. 118/2008 by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zone, Kolkata. 2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the decision of the Committee constituted under Section 86(1)(1A)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, are that a direction was issued to the Department to prefer appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Case No. 16/ST/Commr./08 dated 31.3.2008 passed by A.K. Misra, Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur and after review of the facts of the case, it was opined that it is a fit case where the Department should prefer appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant facts which were considered by the said Committee are that M/s TRF Ltd. was rendering service under the categories of Consulting Engineers Service, Commissioning & Installation Services, Repairs & Maintenance Services, Construction Services and Goods Transport Services and a show cause notice dated 13.12.2006 was issued to the assessee for having short paid the service tax amounting to Rs.12,63,86,088/- and Education Cess amounting to Rs.17,81,737/-, totaling Rs.12,81 ,67,825/- by way of suppression of correct taxable value in violation of the provisions of Sections 67 and 68 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, during the period 2003-04 and 2004-05 relying on the segment reports of the balance sheets of the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee submitted reply to the show cause and after considering the reply, the Committee was of the view that it is a fit case for preferring appeal against the said order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, in response to the assessee's case. 3. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2008 (it appears that the order was pronounced by the Tribunal on 16.9.2008 as mentioned in the last line of the first page of the certified copy of the order but tile reasoned order was given on 23.9.2008). The Tribunal held that no notification published in the Official Gazette, appointing either Sri Amar Kumar Singh or Sri P.N. Vittal Dass as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise for Ranchi and Bhubaneswar Zones, had been produced. The Tribunal held that no notification published in the Official Gazette, appointing either Sri Amar Kumar Singh or Sri P.N. Vittal Dass as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise for Ranchi and Bhubaneswar Zones, had been produced. However, two office orders + Office Order No. 186/2007 dated 26.7.2007 in respect of Sri Amar Kumar Singh and another Office Order No. 85/2008 dated 29.4.2008 in respect of Sri P.N. Vittal Dass, were produced but the Department had not produced any notification published in the Official Gazette appointing either of them as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal also observed that "In the meantime, in the absence of any Gazette Notification appointing the two signatories to the impugned Review Order as Chief Commissioners 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". 4. In view of the above reasons, the question for consideration before us is whether the order to Revenue to prefer appeal passed by the said Committee constituted under Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, was proper or not? 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently submitted that the Tribunal itself could not have gone into the question of validity of the constitution of the Committee as the validity of the constitution could have been challenged separately either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court or where the appointment of such persons as member of Committee could have been questioned. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997)3 SCC 261 [1997(1) PLJR (SC)84]. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that if any of the provision of the statute is clear, then it is required to be read as it is and the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a stipulated condition, which is plain and unambiguous. For this, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. reported in (2008)13 SCC 369 . 6. For this, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. reported in (2008)13 SCC 369 . 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue also drew our attention to the relevant provision, like Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 and rules framed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, which are the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and particularly Rule 3 and submitted that in Rule 3(1) discretion has been given to the Board in the matter of publication of notification and it is not mandatory for the Board to publish all notifications in the Official Gazette because of the use of the word, "may", which has been used in Rule 3(1) of Rules 2002. Therefore, also it is not necessary that every notification is required to be published in the Official Gazette. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in fact, the Committee was constituted by issuing Gazette notification dated 12th May, 2007, whereby the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Ranchi and Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, have been appointed as Member of the Committee under Section 86(1)(1A)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the area Jamshedpur, Patna and Ranchi. A copy of that Gazette notification has been placed on record in this appeal, and this fact is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant also shown us two office orders-Office Order No. 186/2007 dated 26.7.2007 and Office Order No. 85/2008 dated 29.4.2008-former is the promotion order of Sri Amar Kumar Singh to the post of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise and this notification has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue after obtaining approval from the President of India and the latter is the posting order of Sri P.N. Vittal Dass, who appears to have been holding the post of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Visakhpatnam and was given additional-charge of the post of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. In view of the above fact situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no illegality in the constitution of the Committee and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Revenue's Appeal No. 118/2008 is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. In view of the above fact situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no illegality in the constitution of the Committee and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Revenue's Appeal No. 118/2008 is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Poddar, submitted that Rule 3 is very clear and gives discretion to the Board only to the extent that the Board may exercise jurisdiction in the matter of appointment of any person as Central Excise Officer for the purpose of exercise of all or any of the powers conferred by or under the Act and the Rules of 2002 and that once decision is taken for giving appointment, then that can be only by way of notification and Rule 2(f) has made clear that notification means the notification published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, even the power to exercise any of the functions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Central Excise Officer can be given only if it is duly notified in the Official Gazette. According to learned counsel for the assessee, it is the admitted case of the Revenue that under Rule 3 or otherwise, the Office Order No. 186/ 2007 and Office Order No. 85/2008 have not been published in the Official Gazette and therefore, these two persons could (sic-not?) have exercised the jurisdiction as Member of the Committee. 9. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions referred above. Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, is as under:- "Section 86 Appeals to Appellate Tribunal.-(1) Any assessee aggrieved by an order passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 73 or Section 83A or Section 84, or an order passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. (1A)(i) The Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute such Committees as may be necessary for the purposes of this Chapter. (ii) Every Committee constituted under clause (i) shall consist of two Chief Commissioner of Central Excise or two Commissioners of Central Excise, as the case may be. (2) ..........................................." 10. (1A)(i) The Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute such Committees as may be necessary for the purposes of this Chapter. (ii) Every Committee constituted under clause (i) shall consist of two Chief Commissioner of Central Excise or two Commissioners of Central Excise, as the case may be. (2) ..........................................." 10. From a bare perusal of Section 86(1)(1 A)(i), it is clear that power vests in the Board to constitute Committees, which may be necessary for the purpose of Chapter-V covering Sections 64-96 and every Committee so constituted shall consist of two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise or two Commissioners of Central Excise as the case may be. The notification constituting such Committee under Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) and (ii), a copy of which has been placed on record by the Revenue, has duly been published in the Official Gazette dated 12th May, 2007, which clearly indicates that the Board has constituted the Committee and by this notification, constituted the Committee by including the Chief Commissioners of Customs and Central Excise, Ranchi and Bhubaneswar as Members and they have been given jurisdiction over the areas of Jamshedpur, Patna and Ranchi. In view of this Gazette Notification, learned counsel for the respondent did not question the constitution of the Committee as such, but the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Rule 3 of the Rules 2002, the power of the Central Excise Officer could have been confirmed only by way of another notification and that notification should have been published in the Official Gazette. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the word, "person" has been used in Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 2002, which clearly indicates that in addition to constitution of the Committee under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Board should have issued another notification in terms of Rule 3(1) of Rules of 2002. 11. However, we are of the considered opinion that such is not the requirement in any manner in view of the unambiguous provisions in Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) and (ii), which empowers the Board to constitute the Committee in the name of post and holding such post or who may subsequently be appointed on such post automatically becomes the Member of such Committee and it is not the appointment as persona disgrata. If the interpretation of the rule is made according to the view expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent, then it will be putting restriction on the specific statutory provision of the Act and Rules and under the Act, nowhere it is provided that such power can be vested in a person and cannot be vested upon a post. Contrary to the above, in fact, the provision specifically provides for vesting of power upon a person by virtue of holding of the post of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. Therefore, there was no need for publication of the notification by the Board in the name of the persons who were holding the post of Chief Commissioners. 12. It appears that the Tribunal was influenced by the earlier order passed by itself in the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. reported in 2008 (230) ELT 244 (Tri.-Kolkata) and declared that there is no Gazette Notification in the name of Sri Amar Kumar Singh and Sri P.N. Vittal Dass and there are only two office orders and in absence of any Gazette Notification, as the orders in the name of Sri Amar Kumar Singh and Sri P.N. Vittal Dass of their appointment and posting referred above dated 26.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 have not been published in the Official Gazette, the constitution of the Committee was bad in law. The plea taken by the Tribunal on the face of it is contrary to the provisions of Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears that the Tribunal failed in noticing the difference between appointment on the post vis-a-vis constitution of Committee under Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) and (ii). 13. The plea taken by the Tribunal on the face of it is contrary to the provisions of Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears that the Tribunal failed in noticing the difference between appointment on the post vis-a-vis constitution of Committee under Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) and (ii). 13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on the date, the Committee was constituted, i.e. on 12th May, 2007, these two persons were not posted as Chief Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise of that area and therefore, even by implication and by virtue of holding the post also, they were not competent to become Member of the Committee because of the reason that the Gazette Notification dated 12th May, 2007 provides only for inclusion of the Chief Commissioners of Ranchi and Bhubaneswar as member of the Committee and therefore, the persons, who were holding the post at the relevant time of issuance of notification dated 12th May, 2005 alone, could have continued to hold the post as member of the Committee under Section 86(1)(1 A)(i)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, after demit of the office by the persons who were holding the post of Chief Commissioner for those areas, new notification in the name of the persons should have been issued by following the provisions of Rule 3(1) of Rules of 2002. 14. Again the argument is based upon the same plea ignoring the difference between persona disgrata appointment and appointment by virtue of appointment on the post. In the notification dated 12th• May, 2007, the Member of the Committee are two "Chief Commissioners" of the specific areas and Membership is by virtue of holding the post of Chief Commissioner of that area and members are not "the persons" who held the post on 12th May, 2007 alone. The inclusion of the two posts as members in the Committee under Section 86(1)(1 A)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 is in perpetual succession of the Officers holding the post of the Chief Commissioner of that particular area and therefore, immediately on the day on which the Officers demitted the posts of the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ranchi and Bhubaneswar, the other Officers, who have duly been appointed and posted on that posts, automatically become the Member of the Committee by virtue of their being Chief Commissioner. Therefore, from the date when these two Officers, who were duly appointed on the post of Chief Commissioner and were posted on the post for the area of Ranchi and Bhubaneswar, automatically became the Member of the Committee and were competent to take decisions. 15. In view of the above reasons, the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zone, Kolkata dated 23rd September, 2008, passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 1•181 2008 cannot be sustained and hence is set aside. Since the appeal has not been decided by the Tribunal on merit, the appeal is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it on its merit.