1987 (2) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for setting aside or re-calling of Bench Order; Compliance with requirement of authorisation under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Invocation of inherent power by the Tribunal for re-calling the order; Applicability of Tribunal Decision dated 25-9-1985; Consideration of written objection of the respondent; Availability of authorisation during the appeal hearing; Request for grant of time to remedy defects; Jurisdictional aspects of the Tribunal's order; Invocation of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The Appellant, a Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, filed a miscellaneous application seeking the setting aside or re-calling of Bench Order No. 228/86-C dated 29-4-1986, which rejected the appeal due to the failure to provide evidence of compliance with the authorisation requirement under Section 35-B(2) of the Act. The Respondent did not appear for the hearing but submitted written objections. The Appellant relied on invoking the Tribunal's inherent power for re-calling the order, citing a previous decision and the absence of specific provisions for review by the Tribunal. The Appellant highlighted an authorisation dated 20-11-1982 by the Collector in favor of specific officials, including the one who signed the appeal, Jeet Ram Kait, although this authorisation was not presented during the appeal hearing.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Appellant and the written objection of the Respondent. It noted that there is no inherent power of review for the Tribunal in the absence of specific provisions. The Tribunal discussed a previous decision that allowed amendments to be made even at the appellate stage for technical errors like the signing of plaints, but emphasized that the defect in this case was discovered before the appeal rejection order was passed, making it ineligible for post-rejection rectification. The Tribunal highlighted that the authorisation was not available during the appeal hearing, and the Revenue did not request time to rectify this deficiency.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeal rejection was valid as the required authorisation was not presented during the hearing. It stated that the order did not lack jurisdiction or overlook the authorisation. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's request to recall the order, emphasizing that it was not a case where Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, allowing the setting aside of an order dismissing an appeal-in-default, could be applied. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld its earlier decision and dismissed the application for setting aside or re-calling the order.