COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SADHVI GRAMODYOG SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri B.K.S.Raghuvanshi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Bhatia along with Sri Gopal Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appeal of the Department was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the procedure prescribed for filing an appeal before the Tribunal had not been followed. The Tribunal held that in the review order only one Commissioner had placed the date after the signature. Further, the identity of the Commissioner was not indicated.

(3.) We find that the note sheet, which is part of the record indicates that both the Commissioners have not only placed their signatures but have also given the date when they placed their signatures. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur had signed the note sheet on 07.05.2007 and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad had signed the note sheet on 08.05.2009. Thus, there had been an application of mind by the two Commissioners opining that it was a fit case for the Department to file an appeal. The review order that was sent for the purpose of filing the appeal was also duly signed by both the Commissioners. The mere fact that one of the Commissioners had not indicated the date does not make the authorization invalid. The Tribunal committed a manifest error in holding that the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules has not been followed.