Appeal maintainability and delay condonation: Deputy Commissioner's filing was competent and the brief delay was excused.

Section 86(2A) authorises the Committee of Commissioners to direct any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and a Deputy Commissioner falls within the statutory definition of Central Excise Officer under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the objection to the filing authority was rejected and the appeal was treated as competently filed. The brief two-day delay in filing was also explained to the Tribunal's satisfaction, so condonation was granted and the appeal was allowed to proceed in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the Committee of Commissioners' direction under section 86(2A) was maintainable, and whether the two-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 authorises the Committee of Commissioners to direct any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. It further noted that the definition of Central Excise Officer under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 includes the Deputy Commissioner. On that basis, the objection to the competence of the officer filing the appeal was rejected, and the short delay was found sufficiently explained.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability failed, the delay of two days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the condonation application was allowed in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was permitted to proceed after rejection of the challenge to the filing authority and condonation of the brief delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Committee of Commissioners directs a Central Excise Officer to appeal, an appeal filed by a Deputy Commissioner is competent if the officer falls within the statutory definition, and a brief delay may be condoned on sufficient cause being shown.

---