1987 (6) TMI 297 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Lack of authorization by the Collector to file an appeal, Competency of cross-objection, Procedural lacuna in filing the appeal, Validity of subsequent authorization, Compliance with statutory requirements for appeal filing.

In this case, the Deputy Collector (I) of Central Excise, Calcutta filed an appeal against an order-in-Appeal without the required authorization by the Collector, as mandated by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents raised objections to the maintainability of the appeal due to the absence of the Collector's authorization. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the respondents, having succeeded in their appeal before the Appellate Collector, had no grounds to file a cross-objection to the Collector's appeal, rendering it incompetent and dismissed. However, the objection regarding the lack of authorization by the Collector remained to be addressed. The Deputy Collector later produced an authorization post-dated by several months, which was argued to ratify the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal scrutinized the Collector's file and determined that the lack of contemporaneous formal authorization from the Collector was a procedural lacuna that could not be overlooked. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory requirement for authorization by the Collector before filing an appeal was not met, rendering the appeal filed without authority as incompetent. The subsequent authorization by a successor Collector after a significant lapse of time was deemed insufficient to rectify the initial defect. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the failure to comply with the statutory requirement for authorization by the Collector.

This judgment delves into the essential requirement of authorization by the Collector before filing an appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Act. It highlights the significance of adhering to statutory procedures and the hierarchy within the excise department for appeal filings. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of authorization from the Collector at the time of filing the appeal rendered it incompetent, regardless of any subsequent authorizations produced. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and timely adherence to statutory requirements for maintaining the validity of appeals before the Tribunal.