(1.) IN view of the common issue involved in all these cases, the cases are taken up together for final disposal. The Misc. application 459/2001 in Appeal No. E/1580/2001 prays for early hearing on the appeal. Now that the appeal is being taken up for final hearing, this application is infructuous and hence rejected. The applications filed in these four appeals, praying for waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty/penalty amounts, are allowed for purposes of Section 35F of the Central excise Act. The appeals arise for consideration.
(2.) THE impugned orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the sole ground that the appeals were not maintainable for want of fulfilment of the conditions laid down under Rule 213(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Before raising such a ground, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded a finding that the appellants had not signed the Grounds of Appeal and the Form of Verification as required under Rule 213(2) ibid and that the same were signed by the appellants' advocate which was legally not correct and proper. The finding of the Commission (Appeals) is not contested before me. However, ld. counsel Sh. Bipin Garg for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have give an opportunity to the appellants to rectify the defects. It was without giving any such opportunity to the appellants that the lower appellate authority rejected the appeals on the ground of non -compliance with the provisions of Rule 213(2) ibid. This submission of ld. counsel is not seriously contested by ld. SDR, Sh. A.S. Bedi.
(3.) BEFORE parting with these appeals, I would like to point out that this Bench has come across a few other similar appeals against similar orders of the same Commissioner (Appeals), and would express the hope that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) will earnestly follow the above guidelines in future cases also.