https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248855 Procedural defects in authorisation should not defeat adjudication on merits where the defect is curable and later rectified. The Court held that the Tribunal could recall its earlier dismissal of the Revenue's appeal for want of proper authorisation and restore the matter for hearing, because procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than frustrate it. It also recognised that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may be used to correct an erroneous procedural order, and that Rule 11(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits cure of the defect. The restored appeal was therefore fit for decision on merits. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248855 Procedural defects in authorisation should not defeat adjudication on merits where the defect is curable and later rectified. The Court held that the Tribunal could recall its earlier dismissal of the Revenue's appeal for want of proper authorisation and restore the matter for hearing, because procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than frustrate it. It also recognised that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may be used to correct an erroneous procedural order, and that Rule 11(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits cure of the defect. The restored appeal was therefore fit for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248855