1. When the case was called no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Notice for today's hearing had been sent as early as 15-4-1988 to the appellant-company herein. However, in view of the nature of the impugned order we do not consider it necessary to hear the appellant.
Accordingly, we heard learned Departmental Representative.
2. The Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appeal vide the impugned order on the ground that the appeal before him was filed without adhering to the requirement of the Court Fee Act i.e. without affixing the necessary court fee stamp despite the fact that this requirement was specified in the preamble to the order-in-original. Accordingly, he has rejected the appeal.
3. The appellant herein has urged in its memo appeal that the preamble to the order-in-original which was appealed against before the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi did not stipulate the requirement of affixing the court fee stamp to his appeal before the said Collector.
In any case it is submitted by the appellant that this deficiency in not affixing the court fee stamp could be got made up subsequently if the appellant had been told so by the office of the Collector (Appeals). No opportunity to make up that deficiency had been given to the appellant.
4. Learned D.R. has no comments to make on the grounds of appeal set out above.
5. We accept the contention of the appellant herein it ought to have been afforded an opportunity of making up the deficiency in affixing the court fee stamp. Since such an opportunity was not given to the appellant the impugned order is bad in law. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals). He will give an opportunity to the appellant to affix the necessary court fee stamp and thereafter he shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.