1989 (2) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Preliminary objection regarding the validity of appeals not signed by the Principal Officer.
2. Whether the defect in the original appeals filed by the appellant is rectifiable.
3. Application for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
4. Applicability of procedural provisions in rectifying defects in appeals.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent was that the appeals had not been signed by the Principal Officer of the Company as required by the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The Respondent argued that the first set of appeals was not valid due to this reason. The Appellant argued that the defect was procedural and had been rectified by filing fresh appeals signed by the Vice-President (Finance) of the Company. The matter was adjourned for further arguments.

Issue 2:
The Appellant contended that the defect in the original appeals was rectifiable as it was procedural in nature. The Appellant cited various legal precedents to support the argument that substantial compliance with procedural requirements suffices. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the original appeals, though signed by the Accounts Officer, were filed within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal held that the defect was rectifiable, and the fresh appeals signed by the Principal Officer were accepted without the need for condonation of delay.

Issue 3:
The Respondent argued that the second set of appeals filed on 9.2.1989 was time-barred, as the impugned order was communicated on 30.5.1988. However, the Appellant contended that the submission of the second set of appeals should relate back to the filing of the first set, thus no delay was involved. The Tribunal, considering the arguments and legal precedents, concluded that no delay existed in filing the appeals, and no application for condonation of delay was necessary.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal analyzed the procedural provisions under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing that appeals should be in the prescribed form and verified accordingly. It was noted that the Vice-President (Finance) was the principal officer of the company, and the defect in the original appeals was considered rectifiable. Citing legal judgments, including those by the Supreme Court and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that procedural defects are rectifiable, and substantial compliance with rules is sufficient to meet requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the preliminary objection, accepted the rectified appeals signed by the Principal Officer, and scheduled the stay applications for further hearing.