2014 (12) TMI 1259 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - both the Commissioners have signed the notesheet on different dates, but no date has been mentioned in the authorization - On going through the Review order, it is found that there are two different dates, therefore, it cannot be considered that both the Commissioners have signed the Review order on 5-7-2013 - reliance placed on the decision of the case of CST v. L.R. Sharma 2014 (4) TMI 403 - DELHI HIGH COURT by the learned AR - Held that - authorization is undated and the case law relied upon by the learned AR is not relevant to the facts of the present case as in those cases the authorization was granted on two dates but in this case, no date has been mentioned in the authorization. Therefore, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Paswara Papers Ltd. 2013 (12) TMI 1136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it has been observed that part of the authorization is yet to be dated therefore such authorization is not being acceptable to law. Admittedly, the authorization is not dated. In these circumstances, relying on the decision of Paswara Papers, I hold that authorization is not proper. - the appeal is not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal based on the authorization given by the Committee of Commissioners.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against an order, but the respondent contended that the appeal was not maintainable as the authorization provided by the Committee of Commissioners was undated. The respondent cited previous tribunal decisions to support this argument. The learned AR argued that the authorization had been obtained with the signatures of the respective Commissioners, and the date mentioned in the Review order indicated the authorization date. The AR also referenced High Court decisions to counter the respondent's claim. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal considered the submissions.

In the case, it was established that both Commissioners signed the notesheet on different dates, but the authorization itself did not bear any date. The Tribunal found that the date mentioned in the authorization could not be considered as the date of signing by both Commissioners on the Review order, as the Review order displayed two distinct dates. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the authorization was undated, distinguishing it from the cases cited by the AR where the authorization bore two dates. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal held that an undated authorization was not acceptable under the law. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, allowing the respondent's application.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of proper authorization in maintaining the appeal's validity. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, where the absence of a date on the authorization rendered it improper. By referencing previous rulings and legal principles, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal in question.