https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212248 An undated authorisation letter was held sufficient to sustain a departmental appeal because it referred to the impugned order and no material rebutted the presumption that official acts are regularly performed under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; the maintainability objection was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have no jurisdiction to remand the matter, so the remand order was set aside. As the claim required factual examination, the dispute was back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212248 An undated authorisation letter was held sufficient to sustain a departmental appeal because it referred to the impugned order and no material rebutted the presumption that official acts are regularly performed under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; the maintainability objection was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have no jurisdiction to remand the matter, so the remand order was set aside. As the claim required factual examination, the dispute was back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212248