Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Berger Paints India Ltd. on 10 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(41)ELT652(TRI-DEL)
ORDER I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. This appeal and the stay application came up on an earlier occasion. It was noticed that the Collector's authorisation in favour of the officer filing the appeal was not available. Time was, therefore, granted to the appellants to produce the authorisation.
2. One authorisation dated 3-4-1987 was produced by the Ld. Departmental Representative on 22-4-1987. However, as the appeal was filed on 19-1-1987 and the authorisation was dated 3-4-1987 the same could not be accepted. The Ld. SDR was given time as requested to show that a valid authorisation from the Collector in favour 6f the Assistant Collector (who filed the appeal) existed at the time of filing the appeal. This time was extended twice at the request of the Department's representative.
3. Finally the Ld. SDR produced an earlier order of Collector dated 24-9-1986 by which the Collector authorised the Asstt. Collector (Tribunal and Revenue) of the Calcutta Central Excise Collectorate to act on his behalf in the matter of filing the appeals etc. The Ld. Representative argued that in the present matter the Collector examined the Appellate order and by a Note sheet order in the file dated 19-12-1986, authorised filing of the appeal. He requested that the general authorisation, read with the specific orders of the Collector (oft the file Note sheet) given on 19-12-1986 may be considered as a valid authorisation to file the present appeal.
4. We have considered the arguments of the Ld. Representative. The documents to accompany the memorandum of appeal are prescribed by Rule 9 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. This Rule is as follows:
"(1) Every memorandum of appeal shall be filed in quadruplicate and shall be accompanied by four copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order appealed against and where such order is an order passed in appeal or revision, four copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) also of the order of the adjudicating authority;
(2) In an appeal filed under the direction of the Collector or the Administrator, the memorandum of appeal shall also be accompanied by an attested copy of the order containing such direction."
5. A reading of this Rule shows that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by an attested copy of the order containing such direction. The spirit of the rules and their purpose as well as the words contained in them show that these rules have been framed to ensure that each appeal is authorised by the Collector to be filed. There is nothing in the rules to justify acceptance of the kind of general authorisation or the Note sheet order (which merely authorised filing of appeal without referring to an officer) as being inconsonance with Rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
6. We therefore hold that the present appeal not having been filed in accord ance with Rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rule 1s not maintainable. We dismiss it as such. In view of this order the stay application No. 45/87-A also stand dismissed.