COMMR. OF C. EX., BOLPUR Vs. FREYSSINET PREFABS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE M.A. filed by the Department for restoration of its appeal was on the plea that there was an authorization by the Commissioner as required by law. In support of such claim, an annexure marked as Annexure A to the M.A was filed but the M.A. does not reflect on which date the Commissioner took decision for filing the appeal. The decision for filing of appeal which is claimed to be an authorization does not bear any date.

(2.) THE ld. JDR appearing for Revenue submitted that the original record must be showing proper authorization. It may be appreciated that when a public document is released by two public officers, they are expected to authenticate a document under their signature and date to speak the date on which such document could see light of the day. Therefore, the view taken earlier by Tribunal by order dated 26 -4 -07 indicating that there was no authorization in the appeal filed is sufficient enough to hold that the present undated document have only been filed to mitigate the hardship caused by order of dismissal, which was passed properly. If there was any authorization on the date of hearing of the appeal that should have been adduced by Revenue. The order passed by Tribunal on 26 -4 -2007 very clearly demonstrates that there was a specific query by the Bench as to authorization but inability on the part of Revenue to have any authorization makes the appeal fatal. Having found no mistake nor any mistake apparent from record, the M.A. is rejected.