1983 (11) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, appeal not time-barred. Manager's authority upheld, refund ordered.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the appeal was not time-barred as it was filed within the prescribed period. The Claims Manager ... Appeal Memorandum - Estoppel Issues:1. Limitation period for filing appeal.2. Authority of a Claims Manager to sign and file appeals on behalf of a company.3. Applicability of previous judgments on penalty imposition.Analysis:Issue 1: Limitation period for filing appealThe appeal was challenged by the Departmental Representative on the grounds of being time-barred due to the Customs, Central Excise & Gold (Control) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit, holding that the appellant was entitled to six months from the date of communication of the order, even after the appointed date.Issue 2: Authority of a Claims Manager to sign and file appealsThe Claims Manager of the appellant company, Shri K.H. Jani, asserted his authority to sign the Memorandum of Appeal, despite not being the principal officer of the company. He argued that as a Claims Manager, he was authorized to handle all shipping and customs matters, and his authority to sign appeals was supported by relevant legal provisions such as Order XXIX, Rule 1 and Order VI, Rule 14. Additionally, he presented a Power of Attorney from the Director of the Company, further justifying his authorization to sign the appeal.Issue 3: Applicability of previous judgments on penalty impositionThe appellant's representative relied on previous judgments, including one from the Calcutta High Court, to argue that the appellant's case was similar to those where penalties were quashed. The Departmental Representative conceded that in light of these judgments, the appellant's appeal should be accepted, subject to meeting the limitation requirements. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal positions presented, held that the appellant's case was indeed covered by previous judgments, both from the Calcutta High Court and the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the revenue was directed to refund the penalty amount if paid by the appellant within a specified timeframe.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the appeal was not time-barred, the Claims Manager had the authority to sign the appeal, and the appellant's case aligned with previous judgments warranting the quashing of the penalty imposed.