Purposive construction of departmental appeal rules permits substantial compliance where authorisation and application of mind are shown.

Procedural rules governing departmental appeals must be construed purposively to advance the object of the Act and prevent frivolous appeals, not to defeat the right of appeal on a technicality. Where the record shows that the competent officer applied his mind and duly authorised the appeal, substantial compliance with the requirement of an attested direction is sufficient. On that basis, the appeal filed under the Collector's direction was competent, and the Tribunal's dismissal for alleged non-compliance with Rule 9(2) was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed under the direction of the Collector was incompetent for want of compliance with Rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis: The requirement of an attested copy of the direction was held to be intended to ensure that the Collector had applied his mind to the grounds for appeal and that the appeal was duly authorised by the competent officer. The rules were construed purposively so as to advance the object of the Act and to prevent frivolous appeals, and not in a strained manner that would defeat the right of appeal where authorisation was otherwise evident from the record.

Conclusion: The appeal was competent and was filed in compliance with the prescribed procedure; the dismissal by the Tribunal on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 9(2) was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural rules governing filing of departmental appeals must receive a purposive construction, and where the record shows due authorisation and application of mind, substantial compliance with the requirement of direction is sufficient.

---