Curable court-fee deficiency: appeal dismissal for missing stamp was unsustainable without giving time to rectify the defect.

An appeal should not be dismissed outright for want of the prescribed court-fee stamp without first giving the appellant an opportunity to cure the deficiency. The Tribunal treated deficient stamping as a curable procedural defect and held that, in the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness, time could be granted to make good the court fee. It further stated that the absence of an express provision in the Central excise law did not exclude reliance on the general principles reflected in the Civil Procedure Code, where deficient court-fee stamping is not treated as incurable. The dismissal for non-payment of court fee was therefore unsustainable, and the appellants were entitled to an opportunity to pay the requisite fee.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal could be dismissed outright for want of the requisite court-fee stamp without first affording an opportunity to make good the deficiency.

Analysis: The appeal authority rejected the appeals solely on the ground of absence of the prescribed court-fee stamp. The Tribunal held that such a defect was curable and that, in the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness, the appellants ought to have been given an opportunity to remove the deficiency. It further held that the absence of an express provision in the Central excise law did not bar recourse to the general principles embodied in the Civil Procedure Code, under which deficient stamping is not treated as an incurable defect and time may be granted to make good the court fee. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should not be defeated by a technical omission, and that the power to permit payment of deficient court fee is discretionary but available.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals for non-payment of court fee was unsustainable; the appellants were entitled to an opportunity to pay the requisite court fee.

---