Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise And Anr. vs Kanchan Industries And Anr. on 5 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(70)ECC354
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the respective impugned orders passed by the CCE (A), Trichy and Madras vide Order-in-Appeal No. 165/92 CE (MDU) dated 13.7.92 and 177/92(M) dated 31.7.92 respectively. In both these appeals the Registry of the Delhi Bench had noticed defects and notices had been issued to the respective Collectorates pointing out the defects for rectification. The defects have not been rectified. It is also seen that in both the appeals the authorisation given to Shri P. Mohamed Ali, Deputy Collector (Appeals) and the Supdt. of Central Excise (Judicial) does not appear the words "that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is not legal and proper" as a requirement to be incorporated in the authorisation form in terms of Section 35B(2) of the Act. The Collectors while giving the authorisation have ignored the provisions of law that the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) are not legal and proper and if the same are not found in the authorisation, then there is violation of the provisions of law and the appeals are liable to be rejected on this ground alone in terms of the following judgments:
(a) CCE v. Raghuvir Texturizers (P) Ltd. as reported in 1986 (86) ELT 647.
(b) CCE v. Caprihans India Ltd. as reported in 1988 (101) ELT 5 (SC).
(c) CCE v. Berger Paints as .
The Collectors had been put to notice and despite several opportunities given to the Collectors, the defects have not been cured. Therefore, following the [ratio] of the above-noted judgments, these appeals are rejected for the reasons indicated.