Curable filing defects and separate-appeal delay: restoration allowed for authorisation lapse, but limitation defeat followed.

A procedural defect in not filing the original authorisation was treated as curable because the record showed that authority to appeal had in fact been granted, and the appellant was permitted to rectify the filing defect by producing the original document. By contrast, delay in filing separate appeals against a common order was not condoned, as the relevant procedural rule required separate appeals and the record showed repeated directions to follow that course; the plea of bona fide belief and the explanation for substantial delay were rejected. The appeal affected by the curable defect was restored, while the remaining appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal dismissed for want of original authorisation could be restored on the ground that non-filing of the original was a curable defect; (ii) Whether the delay in filing the remaining appeals against a common order disposing of more than one appeal was satisfactorily explained and liable to be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal dismissed for want of original authorisation could be restored on the ground that non-filing of the original was a curable defect.

Analysis: The defect in not filing the original authorisation was found to be procedural and curable. The record showed that the Commissioner had in fact authorised filing of the appeal, and the registry objection related to a different verification defect. In these circumstances, the appellant was allowed to rectify the defect by producing the original authorisation.

Conclusion: The appeal was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the remaining appeals against a common order disposing of more than one appeal was satisfactorily explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules made it clear that a common appeal could not be filed where the impugned order disposed of more than one appeal. The departmental file also showed that the Commissioner had repeatedly directed that separate appeals be filed, so the plea of bona fide belief that one appeal was sufficient was rejected. No adequate explanation for the substantial delay was furnished.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The order granted restoration of the appeal affected by the curable filing defect, but declined indulgence on limitation for the other appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural filing defect that does not go to the existence of authority is curable, but delay in filing separate appeals against a common order must be satisfactorily explained, especially where the appellant was aware that multiple appeals were required.

---