2008 (2) TMI 748

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... legal nor proper for the reason that office copy of the letter of Authorization bears dated signature of both Commissioners constituting the Committee. The Committee reviewed the Order-in-Appeal and considered Appealable. The Tribunal had not properly scrutinized the documents and passed an order inflicting injustice to the Department. 2. The order dated 26-4-07 was passed by Tribunal taking note of the fact that there was no proper authorization issued by the Committee of Commissioners which was signed on two different dates i.e. on 22-11-06 and 29-11-06 without being dated at the top. That also did not exhibit whether there was a cause to appreciate that the order appealed was neither legal nor proper. It was therefore held that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appears to be an insertion. Secondly when one member of the Committee dated the impugned Authorisation as 22-11-2006, the other member signing the same dated as 29-11-2006. This clearly proves that there was no meeting of the Committee either on 22-11-06 or 29-11-06 for signing by two members on two different dates. This lead the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that filing of appeal by Revenue was not under proper Authority. Even the impugned authorization does not exhibit whether order appealed suffered from legal infirmity or propriety and if so in what manner. The Authorisation not exhibiting the date of meeting for decision, that has not seen light of the day. 5.2 Right of appeal is not a vested right but a statutory one. Manda....