1990 (3) TMI 70 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court reinstates appeal, emphasizes importance of compliance with rules

The Supreme Court overturned the Tribunal's dismissal of an appeal under section 35L(b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, due to non-compliance ... Whether provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 had not been complied with? Held that:- Having regard to the purpose of these rules as we conceive it, namely, to ensure that there was an application of mind to the points in respect of which the question for filing an appeal arose and that the appeal was duly authorised by the Collector, and was filed by the person authorised by the Collector, and was filed by the person authorised by the Collector in order to ensure that frivolous and unnecessary appeals are not filed, we are of the opinion that in the present context and in view of the terms of the rules and the purpose intended to be served, the appeal was competent and was duly filed in compliance with the procedure as enjoined by the rules. It has to be borne in mind that the rules framed therein were to carry out the purposes of the Act. By reading the rules in the manner canvassed by Dr Pal, counsel for the respondent, before us which had prevailed over the tribunal, in our opinion, would defeat the purposes of the rules. The language of the relevant Section and the rules as we have noticed, do not warrant such a strained construction. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it did. In the premises, the judgment and order of the tribunal cannot be sustained. Issues:Appeal dismissal based on non-compliance with Rule 9(2) of Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.Analysis:The appeal under section 35L(b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with Rule 9(2) of the relevant rules. Rule 9(2) requires that in an appeal filed under the direction of the Collector, the memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by an attested copy of the order containing such direction. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of this rule was to ensure that the appeal was authorized by the Collector to be filed. The appeal in question was authorized by the Collector through a specific authority dated 24th September, 1986, which empowered the Assistant Collector to act on behalf of the Collector in filing the appeal.The Collector had reviewed the orders related to the appeal and provided specific notes regarding the legal aspects and potential grounds for appeal. Despite this, the Tribunal held that the general authorization and notesheet orders did not align with the requirements of Rule 9(2). However, the Supreme Court interpreted the rules differently, emphasizing that the appeal was duly authorized by the Collector and filed in compliance with the prescribed procedure. The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring that appeals are not frivolous and unnecessary, but found that the appeal in question met the necessary criteria.The Supreme Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal based on non-compliance with Rule 9(2). As the Tribunal had not considered the appeal on its merits, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for further consideration on the merits and in accordance with the law. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of by setting aside the Tribunal's decision and remanding the case for a review on its merits.