9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the authorisation granted by the Collector of Central Excise for filing the present appeal is not proper. We have heard both sides on the preliminary objection. 2. The authorisation reads as follows :- "I, hereby authorise the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Headquarters, Vadodara under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, in the matter decided by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay vide his Order No. M-191/BRD-116/86, dated 14-3-1986 in respect of M/s. AIMS Oxygen Pvt. Ltd., Baroda" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal held that it was not necessary for the Collector to disclose the ground on which he formed the opinion. The same was the view taken in Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Madras - 1985 (20) E.L.T. [323] (Tribunal). 6. In Collector of Central Excise v. Berger Paints India Ltd. - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 210 (SC), authorisation had not been produced before the Tribunal which accordingly dismissed the appeal on that ground. Authorisation was placed before the Supreme Court. The reported decision has extracted the language of the authorisation. We find that it is in identical terms, inasmuch as authorisation in that case also did not indicate the grounds or reasons for the authorisation. The Supreme Court up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. There may, of course, be cases where an authorisation might have been granted without due application of mind, in which case that may be a matter for verification. What we are faced in this case is the objection that the authorisation is defective, inasmuch as it does not advert to the grounds or reasons. This contention has to be rejected in view of the decisions of the Tribunal in K. Manibhai & Co. and Electrols and the decision of the Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is maintainable.
8. The appeal is adjourned to 18-11-1996 for hearing. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for respondent has agreed to supply readable copies of the impugned orders and show cause notice. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
