https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72824 The Tribunal had no inherent power to recall its earlier order rejecting an appeal for want of proof of authorisation, because no specific statutory provision conferred a power of review. The defect was noticed before rejection and no time was sought to cure it, so the later claim that authorisation existed but had not been produced did not justify reopening the concluded order. The matter also did not fall within Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governing dismissal for default. The request to recall and set aside the earlier order was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 May 2011 12:53:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72824 The Tribunal had no inherent power to recall its earlier order rejecting an appeal for want of proof of authorisation, because no specific statutory provision conferred a power of review. The defect was noticed before rejection and no time was sought to cure it, so the later claim that authorisation existed but had not been produced did not justify reopening the concluded order. The matter also did not fall within Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governing dismissal for default. The request to recall and set aside the earlier order was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72824