Authorisation defect in filing an excise appeal treated as procedural, allowing amendment of the appeal.

An appeal filed by an officer other than the one specifically authorised by the Committee of Commissioners was treated as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive bar under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of prejudice to the respondent and the scope to rectify the authorisation defect supported permitting correction through amendment. On that basis, the preliminary objection was rejected in substance and the department was allowed to file an amended appeal within the time granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed by an officer different from the one specifically authorised by the Committee of Commissioners was hit by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether such defect could be cured by amendment.

Analysis: The defect in the filing of the appeal was treated as procedural in nature. The absence of prejudice to the respondent and the possibility of rectifying the authorisation irregularity were considered sufficient to permit correction of the appeal in accordance with the Committee of Commissioners' directions.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected in substance, and the department was permitted to file an amended appeal within the time granted.

---