https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31445 An appeal filed by an officer other than the one specifically authorised by the Committee of Commissioners was treated as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive bar under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of prejudice to the respondent and the scope to rectify the authorisation defect supported permitting correction through amendment. On that basis, the preliminary objection was rejected in substance and the department was allowed to file an amended appeal within the time granted. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31445 An appeal filed by an officer other than the one specifically authorised by the Committee of Commissioners was treated as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive bar under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of prejudice to the respondent and the scope to rectify the authorisation defect supported permitting correction through amendment. On that basis, the preliminary objection was rejected in substance and the department was allowed to file an amended appeal within the time granted. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31445