9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for the appellant-applicants wanted to argue on the preliminary objection and the matters were adjourned to 13.1.1989. On 13.1.1989, when the matters were called, Shri Mehta made a request for adjournment on the ground that he wanted time to rectify the defect as was observed on 9.12.1988. The matters were, therefore, adjourned to 16.2.1989. On 16.2.1989, Shri Mehta stated that the appellant-applicants had rectified the defect by filing fresh appeals duly signed by the Vice-President (Finance) of the Company and the same were presented in the registry on 9.2.1989. Shri Gupta raised a preliminary objection stating that earlier appeals filed by the appellant-applicants being defective, should be dismissed and the present appeals should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects are rectifiable. By filing the first set of appeals, the appellant-applicants made substantial compliance of the requirement of filing appeals within the statutory time limit. The submission of the second set of appeals should date back to the filing of the first set of the appeals. Considered from this angle, there is no delay in filing the appeals and no application for condonation of delay is necessary. In support of his arguments, Shri Mehta has relied on the following decisions :- (i) AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2221 - Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner and Others. (ii) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal) - Government Woollen Mills, Srinagar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. (iii) 1988 (38) E.L.T. 330 (Tribunal) - Khira ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prescribed manner. Rule 216(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1982 provides that an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 35-B and the form of verification as contained in Form EA-3 shall be signed by the person specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 213 ibid. Sub-rule 2(c) of Rule 213 ibid lays down that in case of a Company, the appeal shall be signed by the principal officer thereof. It is not disputed that the Vice-President (Finance) is the principal officer of the appellant-company. We are of the view that sub-section (6) of Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act is a procedural provision. According to the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2221, the procedural defects are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal ran from the date of the filing and not from the date of rectification. Having due regard to the aforesaid decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that the defect found in the original set of appeals filed by the appellant-applicant's is rectifiable, and we allow the rectification done by them by filing the second set of appeals duly signed by the principal officer of the company. In view of this finding, no delay in filing the appeals is involved and hence, no application for condonation of delay is required.
5. The preliminary objection raised by the learned S.D.R. is disposed of in the above terms.
6. The stay applications will come up for hearing on 3.3.1989. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
