Court upholds Revenue appeal despite signature date absence, deeming it clerical error, not fatal.

The court held in favor of the Revenue, allowing the appeal. The court found that the absence of a date below one committee member's signature was a clerical irregularity, not a fatal error, thus rejecting the challenge by the Excise department regarding the authorization for filing the appeal. The court emphasized that such defects do not invalidate the authorization unless proven otherwise, emphasizing the aim to prevent frivolous appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the authorisation for filing the departmental appeal was defective because one member of the Committee of Commissioners had not put the date below the signature.

Analysis: The authorisation on record bore the date 28-6-2010 and the signatures of both members of the Committee of Commissioners. There was no material to show that the authorising members had not applied their mind or that the absence of a date below one signature meant that the decision was not taken on the stated date. The absence of a date below one signature was held to be a clerical irregularity and not a statutory infraction fatal to the validity of the authorisation.

Conclusion: The rejection of the departmental appeal on the ground of defective authorisation was unsustainable. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

---