Appeal dismissed due to lack of proper authorization under Central Excises and Salt Act

The appeal filed by Deputy Collector (I), Central Excise, Calcutta against an order-in-appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal found the appeal incompetent due to the lack of specific authorization from the Collector as required by Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Despite a typed copy of authorization being submitted, doubts were raised about its authenticity and specificity to the case. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a proper authorization, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 18-10-1982 of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta by Deputy Collector (I), Central Excise, Calcutta without proper authorization under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lack of Proper Authorization:
The appeal was filed by the Deputy Collector (I), Central Excise, Calcutta against the order-in-appeal dated 18-10-1982 of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The respondents raised an objection that no copy of the authorization from the Collector for filing the appeal was submitted along with the appeal. As per Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the authorization from the Collector is mandatory for the Deputy Collector to file an appeal. The Bench directed the Department's representative to produce the authorization, which was eventually filed as a typed copy dated 20-11-1982. However, the original file of the Collector containing the authorization was not produced despite the Bench's request.

2. Doubts Regarding Authorization:
The Bench expressed concerns regarding the authenticity of the authorization provided by the Department. The authorization appeared to be a general one, possibly issued without specific reference to the case in question. The wording of the authorization raised doubts about its specificity to the appeal at hand. The authorization mentioned filing appeals or cross-objections before the Tribunal in a generic manner, which cast doubt on its applicability to the particular case. The Bench highlighted that the authorization was partially typed and partially filled in manuscript, indicating potential general use rather than specific authorization for the present case.

3. Dismissal of Appeal as Incompetent:
Based on the lack of concrete evidence regarding the authorization from the Collector and the doubts surrounding the general nature of the authorization provided, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Deputy Collector was not competent. The Tribunal emphasized that the Deputy Collector needed a specific authorization under Section 35-B(2) to file the appeal, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent due to the absence of proper authorization from the Collector.

4. Final Order:
The final order dated 20-11-1982, issued by the Collector, authorized Deputy Collector Sri T. Tochhawng to act on behalf of the Collector in filing appeals or cross-objections before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta/Delhi. The order specified the case details and the authorized officer, thereby fulfilling the requirement of Section 35-B(2) for proper authorization before filing appeals.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, as incompetent due to the lack of specific authorization from the Collector for the Deputy Collector to file the appeal under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

---