2007 (10) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of both the parties, the appeal is beard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the revenue. The respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of various brands of cigarette falling under Chapter 24. of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period from 1-1-1975 to 28-2-1983. The assessment was finalised on 30-8-2002, where under, there was an excess payment to an extent of Rs. 3,76,29,657.73 by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s allowed on 18-3-2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue has filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore, which appeal came to be dismissed on 22-11-2006 on two grounds : Firstly, that the person who represented the revenue was not competent to file the appeal and it was required to be represented by an authorised Officer under Section 35B(2) Of the Central Excise Act. In order to cure....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the present appeal is filed. - 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 4. The only question of law that arises for our consideration is, whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable as the revenue was not represented by properly authorised Officer and whether the authorization granted on 16-6-2005 by the Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rst authorization was produced by the appellant along with the appeal memo filed through the Committee The second authorization is filed by the appellant granting permission to the authorized Officer to file the appeal, if there are changes in the committee members, the Tribunal was not justified on the ground that the second authorization was not granted by the very same officers who had granted ....