Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Shree Ganesh Dyeing And Printing Works on 29 June, 2006
5.1 We are of the considered opinion that this error is not a procedural error as found in the citations. Those errors noted in the citations were all curable. It did not pertain to a situation like in the present case. The present error is non-curable and it cannot be rectified by allowing the present Miscellaneous Application. Furthermore, the present Miscellaneous Application seeks fresh and totally new grounds which have not been authorized by the earlier Committee of Commissioners. On this point also Revenue's plea fails. We clearly notice from the judgment of CCE v. Shree Ganesh (supra) wherein the Tribunal clearly held that subsequent act cannot rectify the infirmity of the first act, as both the acts are being performed by two different authorities at different stages. Furthermore, it has held that one cannot venture to cull out the meaning of the words "not legal and proper" from the grounds of appeal, as it is completely outside the scope of Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act. In these cited cases, the Commissioner instead of authorizing any officer, had himself filed the appeal and such infirmity has been held to be not curable and the appeal has been dismissed.