Appeal dismissed for lack of specific wording in authorization under Section 35B(1) - Precedent set by Supreme Court.

The appellate tribunal dismissed the department's appeal due to the lack of specific wording in the authorization signed by the Commissioner, as mandated by Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, following a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 5.

---

---

The appellate tribunal dismissed the department's appeal because the authorisation signed by the Commissioner did not contain the words "not legal and proper" as required by Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, following a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 5.

---