Absence of statutory review power bars recall of a rejected appeal where authorisation was not proved in time.

The Tribunal had no inherent power to recall its earlier order rejecting an appeal for want of proof of authorisation, because no specific statutory provision conferred a power of review. The defect was noticed before rejection and no time was sought to cure it, so the later claim that authorisation existed but had not been produced did not justify reopening the concluded order. The matter also did not fall within Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governing dismissal for default. The request to recall and set aside the earlier order was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier order rejecting the appeal for want of proof of authorisation under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the alleged availability of authorisation after rejection justified interference.

Analysis: In the absence of any specific enabling provision, the Tribunal had no inherent power of review. The defect relating to proof of authorisation was noticed before the appeal was rejected, and no time was sought to cure it at that stage. Once the appeal had been rejected for non-compliance, the later assertion that authorisation existed but had not been placed before the Tribunal did not create any basis for recall. The case did not fall within Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governing dismissal for default.

Conclusion: The request to recall and set aside the earlier order was not maintainable and stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot recall an order in the absence of statutory power of review, and a procedural defect that was not cured before rejection of the appeal cannot be relied upon later to reopen the concluded order.

---