2012 (4) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Meenakshee, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr Kumar Pankaj, Jr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr T. N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate and Mr Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) Both these appeals have been heard together because they involve a common question of law as per submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue which is appellant in both ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t date while the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable on 9.1.2009 itself. 3. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that a substantial question of law arises in these appeals as to whether the provisions of Section 35B (2) requiring authorization for filing an appeal are directory or mandatory. According to learned counsel for the appellant who represents the Reven....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Collector of Central Excise Vs. M/s Rohit Pulp Paper Mills : AIR 1999 SC 554. In that case, an authorization was available but it was found to be not a legal or proper authorization because while the authorization order authorized the concerned Superintendent to file the appeal, it failed to show application of mind to indicate whether the order appealed against was legal or otherwise. In reply, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore the appeals once it had dismissed them as not maintainable. The limited power available to the Tribunal under Section 35C (2) is to pass any order with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record in respect of any order passed by it under Section 35C (1). Clearly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the earlier orders whereby it ....