https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354475 The authorisation for filing the departmental appeal was valid despite one Commissioner not writing the date below the signature, because the record already bore the date and the signatures of both members of the Committee of Commissioners. In the absence of material showing non-application of mind or that the decision was not taken on the stated date, the omission was treated as a clerical irregularity rather than a statutory defect. The rejection of the departmental appeal on the ground of defective authorisation was therefore unsustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:49:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354475 The authorisation for filing the departmental appeal was valid despite one Commissioner not writing the date below the signature, because the record already bore the date and the signatures of both members of the Committee of Commissioners. In the absence of material showing non-application of mind or that the decision was not taken on the stated date, the omission was treated as a clerical irregularity rather than a statutory defect. The rejection of the departmental appeal on the ground of defective authorisation was therefore unsustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354475