2008 (2) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Application for restoration of appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue as non-maintainable on the ground that authorization filed by revenue not proper and legal held that any subsequent authorization after the appeal has been dismissed, has no value - Accordingly, the application for restoration of appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal filed by revenue against the Tribunal's order.
2. Validity of authorization for filing the appeal.
3. Impact of subsequent authorization after dismissal of appeal.
4. Comparison of legal precedents regarding the value of subsequent authorization.

Analysis:
1. The application for restoration of appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the Tribunal's order dated 2-7-2007, which dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable due to issues with the authorization for filing the appeal. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in the case of Maikkal Fibres Ltd. to dismiss the appeal.

2. The authorization for filing the appeal was found to be invalid as it was signed only by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, during a period when the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad, was also required to sign. The revenue submitted a fresh authorization signed by both Commissioners on 5-9-2007 along with the application for restoration. The argument was made that the delay in filing the fresh authorization should be condonable as per legal precedents.

3. The revenue contended that the subsequent authorization should be considered valid even after the dismissal of the appeal. However, the opposing counsel argued that as per the Tribunal's decision in the case of Johny Choudhury, any authorization after the dismissal of the appeal holds no value. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and dismissed the application for restoration.

4. The Tribunal, following the precedent set in the case of Johny Choudhury, emphasized that any subsequent authorization filed after the dismissal of an appeal is not valid. Therefore, the application for restoration of appeal was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly on 8-2-2008.