COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, Vs. BOVING FORES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset Shri Ravi Shankar appearing for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection that authorization issued by the Collector is not in proper form as envisaged under Section 35 B (2) of the Central Excise Act.

(2.) Section 35 B (2) is as under: The (Commissioner of Central Excise) may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate (Commissioner of Central Excise) under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or the (Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order."

(3.) Shri Ravi Shankar submitted that Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that appeal is not maintainable if the authorization is not in proper form in as much as it does not contain whether order passed by the authority below is legal or otherwise. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs Rohit Pulp Paper Mills reported in 1998 (101) ELT(5) which has confirmed the view of the Tribunal.