9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the product, signal generator by classifying under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA and confirmed demand of only Rs. 1,73,639.00 against the respondents. 2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of test equipment and their components falling under Chapter Headings 90 and 85 of the CETA. They cleared the goods i.e. signal generator/audio oscillator under Chapter Heading 9030.00 of the CETA and paid duty at a concessional rate of 5% ad valorem by taking benefit of Notification No. 46/88, dated 1-3-1988. However, when this fact came to the notice of the audit party in the month of January, 1991 that the goods cleared were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA, the respondents filed classification list w. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. He has in support of this contention placed reliance on CCE, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). 7. While refuting this preliminary contention of the counsel the learned SDR has contended that the authorisation read with the grounds of appeal prepared by the Collector is valid and satisfies the pre-requisites Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. 8. The perusal of the file shows that the Collector (Appeals) before signing the authorisation for authorising the Assistant Collector to file the appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal drafted grounds of appeal also wherein he had clearly mentioned that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifically mentioned so in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, it can be safely said that he applied his mind and thereafter signed the authorisation letter authorising the Assistant Collector to file the appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). His omission to repeat in the authorisation letter the same words that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not legal and proper which he mentioned in the grounds of appeal, was not essential and omission on his part did not render his authorisation invalid so as to non-suit the Revenue by dismissing their appeal on this ground. 10. It is well settled that the technicalities of the law cannot be allowed to stand in the way of justice. Rather when such technic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismiss the appeal by holding the same to be infructuous. His impugned order in appeal before us has apparently resulted in miscarriage of justice and that being so a technical flaw even if it is assumed to be in the authorisation letter due to non-mentioning of the words that the order of the Collector (Appeals) sought to be appealed against was not proper and legal , cannot be allowed to prevail and made ground for the dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue as that would only perpetuate injustice which had already been done to the Revenue by the Collector (Appeals). Therefore, we overrule the preliminary objection raised by the counsel about the non-maintainability of the appeal of the Revenue. 11. On merits, the learned counsel has fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
