TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal rejected due to invalid authorization, delay in filing, and insufficient reasons. Importance of compliance highlighted.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus KUSUM PRODUCTS</h3> The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi due to the invalid authorization provided by the Collector of Central Excise, the delay ... Appeal by Department Issues: Authorization to file appeal, Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delayThe judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with the issues of authorization to file an appeal, the delay in filing the appeal, and the condonation of the delay. The respondent, M/s. Kusum Products, did not appear during the hearing. The learned SDR, Mr. Krishnamurthy, submitted two documents to the court: an authorization from the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, and a document explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The authorization provided was deemed invalid as it was a blanket authority given under certain sections, resembling a power of attorney rather than a specific authorization required by law. The authorization was issued one year after the appeal was filed, contrary to the requirement of obtaining authority before filing the appeal, rendering it invalid.The judgment highlighted that the authorization provided did not meet the requirements of Section 35B, which mandates that the Collector must first come to the opinion that an order passed by the Collector Appeals is not legal or proper before authorizing an appeal. The authorization in this case was not in line with the spirit or letter of Section 35B, as it allowed appeals not only to the Tribunal but also to the Collector Appeals, making it invalid. Additionally, the delay in filing the appeal was explained by a list of events causing a two-month delay, including staff leaves, machine malfunctions, and holidays. The Tribunal found the reasons for delay unconvincing, noting that the appellants did not take action during the three-month period allowed by law for filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal due to the invalid authorization provided by the Collector of Central Excise, the delay in filing the appeal, and the insufficient reasons presented for condoning the delay. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with legal requirements for authorization and timely filing of appeals to ensure the validity of the appeal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
