9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echa, ld. advocate for the respondents. 3. The ld. counsel has raised a preliminary objection at the outset. He submits that the authorisation by the jurisdictional Collector for filing this appeal is not proper inasmuch as the words not legal or proper do not figure in the text of the authorisation. He submits that any authorisation to file appeal under Sec. 35B of the Central Excise Act can be given by the proper officer only after satisfying himself that the order sought to be appealed against is not legal or proper. According to him, unless these words are not used in the text of the authorisation, the satisfaction of the proper officer is not borne on record, which according to the ld. counsel is mandatory for purposes of Sec. 35B( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sec. 35B against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The words not legal or proper as used under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 35B do not figure in this text of authorisation. The controversy before us revolves round this aspect. On a perusal of the decision cited by the ld. counsel, we note that in all the 4 cases considered by the Tribunal, a view was taken to the effect that, in the absence of appropriate noting by the authorising officer in his file, any authorisation by him for filing appeal under Sec. 35B(2) without expressly using the words not legal or proper in the text of authorisation would not be considered to indicate application of mind by the said officer to the order sought to be appealed against. We, however, note that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra), and we are inclined to follow the same. In the instant case, we further note that the Revenue appeal was filed as early as in 1993 and the records show that an objection like the one taken by the ld. advocate before us was never taken by, or on behalf of, the respondents at any stage of the proceedings before. The records of the proceedings clearly disclose that, at least on one of the occasions, the authorisation of the Collector was considered by the Bench in the presence of both the sides. Nevertheless, no objection was raised at that time. As per the available records, it is today for the first time that the respondents have raised such an objection. Apart from all the above consideration, we hold that an appeal filed as early ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised price had taken effect as early as on 1-11-1991 (the date of filing of the price list). The Collector (Appeals) relied on the Apex Court decision in Samrat International v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 and also the Tribunal s decision in the case of IDPL v Collector of Central Excise - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 356 and, further, on Board s circular dated 26-8-1986. 7. The ld. DR has reiterated the findings and observations of the Asstt. Collector as recorded in the Order-in-Original and also the grounds of appeal. The ld. counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order on the basis of the very case law cited in the order. 8. We have carefully examined the matter. The issue is one which has been settled lon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
