Full Judgment
2. Today when the cases were called out for compliance we find that the authorisation granted by the Commissioner under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not signed by him but in all cases a photostat copy thereof has been filed. The authorisation by a Commissioner is crucial to the filing of the appeal. Where the authorisation is found to be defective the appeals have been dismissed.
Thus in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 5 the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that absence of certain key words in the body of the authorisation would render the authorisation itself as without merit. An authorisation which has not even been signed by the Commissioner, therefore, has to meet the same fate.
3. We find that the Superintendent has filed the appeal and has signed it in terms of the authorisation. However, the stay applications have been signed by the Commissioner. There also what has been filed are the photostat copies.
4. We find that in not bothering to follow even the procedural dictates the Commissioner has acted in a negligent manner. In the absence of proper authorisation this appeal would not survive.
5. Shri Choubey on behalf of the department submits that the Commissioner should be given more time to comply with the directions.
Ordinarily we would have acceded to such request if the defect had not been as grave as has been noticed by us earlier. In this solitary instance only last week we had dismissed another bunch of appeals on similar observations from this very Commissionerate (Appeal Nos.
E/170/2000 to E/175, 177, 179, 181, 183 and 185/2000-Mum.).
6. The four appeals are dismissed, in terms of Rule 11 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.