https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153276 The Tribunal held that the appeal filed without proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act was valid, as the Committee's approval implied their opinion on the legality of the impugned order. It was determined that filing one appeal against multiple parties was acceptable under CESTAT Procedure Rules, even if separate appeals were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The defect in authorization by the Committee was considered curable, and the Tribunal directed notice to be issued for rectifying the deficiency. en-us Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:56:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153276 The Tribunal held that the appeal filed without proper authorization by the Committee of Commissioners under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act was valid, as the Committee's approval implied their opinion on the legality of the impugned order. It was determined that filing one appeal against multiple parties was acceptable under CESTAT Procedure Rules, even if separate appeals were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The defect in authorization by the Committee was considered curable, and the Tribunal directed notice to be issued for rectifying the deficiency. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153276