Presumption of regularity validates undated appeal authorisation, while remand by Commissioner (Appeals) is without jurisdiction.

An undated authorisation letter was held sufficient to sustain a departmental appeal because it referred to the impugned order and no material rebutted the presumption that official acts are regularly performed under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; the maintainability objection was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have no jurisdiction to remand the matter, so the remand order was set aside. As the claim required factual examination, the dispute was back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal was not maintainable for want of valid authorisation by the Committee of Commissioners under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal was not maintainable for want of valid authorisation by the Committee of Commissioners under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The authorisation letter was undated, but it referred to the impugned order and the appeal was filed after the amendment requiring authorisation by the Committee of Commissioners. In the absence of material rebutting the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, the mere absence of a date on the authorisation letter was held insufficient to displace the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority.

Analysis: It was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not possess jurisdiction to remand a matter. The impugned remand order therefore could not be sustained. At the same time, since the claim of abatement required factual examination of the record, the matter was directed to be considered by the original adjudicating authority itself.

Conclusion: The remand order was set aside for want of jurisdiction and the matter was directed to be considered afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned remand order was displaced, while the controversy was sent back to the original adjudicating authority for consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal authorization is not defeated merely because the authorization letter is undated if the surrounding circumstances and the presumption of regularity support its validity, and a Commissioner (Appeals) cannot remand a matter where such power is absent.

---