https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53620 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai found that the appeal filed by an unauthorized officer before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Vice-President allowed the rectification application, disposing of the appeal and upholding the impugned order, thereby rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This case emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions when filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure the validity and maintainability of the appeal. en-us Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:47:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53620 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai found that the appeal filed by an unauthorized officer before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Vice-President allowed the rectification application, disposing of the appeal and upholding the impugned order, thereby rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This case emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions when filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure the validity and maintainability of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53620