Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.29 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise, Vadodra vs Rohit Pulp Paper Mills on 30 April, 1998
9. The ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in CCE Vadodara Vs.Rohit Pulp Paper Mills, (supra) relied upon by the counsel is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In that case, there was no formation of the opinion by the Collector who signed the authorisation that the order appealed against was not legal and proper. Neither the authorisation nor not-sheet indicated whether the impugned order was illegal or otherwise even on the noting was not produced before the Apex Court. The Collector simply authorised the Superintendent without applying the mind. It was under these circumstances, the Apex Court opined that the authorisation was not proper while upholding the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Revenue being not maintainable due to defective authorisation. But in the case in hand, such are not the facts. As observed above, the perusal of grounds of appeal drafted by the Collector who signed the authorisation letetr, shows that he applied his mind and came to a definite conclusion that the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) was not legal land proper. He specifically 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 repeate 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.
1