https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94995 A photocopied authorization initialled by a Superintendent was treated as inadequate where Section 35B required filing the original authorization; the procedural defect was not cured despite notice, so the departmental appeal was dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal also noted that persistent non-compliance with its directions went beyond mere negligence and was characterised as contemptuous conduct. en-us Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:02:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94995 A photocopied authorization initialled by a Superintendent was treated as inadequate where Section 35B required filing the original authorization; the procedural defect was not cured despite notice, so the departmental appeal was dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal also noted that persistent non-compliance with its directions went beyond mere negligence and was characterised as contemptuous conduct. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94995