Collector of Central Excise Vs. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

1. the learned jdr has not produced the collector's authorisation/or the proceedings in which the authorisation was taken from the collector for filing this appeal despite a number of opportunities i.e.31-12-1991 and 21-1-1992.2. prima facie, the authorisation dated 30-3-1983 of shri s.mukhopadhyay, collector of central excise, calcutta is not a proper authorisation - being of general nature. following the ratio of tribunal's judgments : the appeal is liable to be dismissed prima facie, as contended by the learned advocate for the respondents.3. having considered the facts and circumstances of this case on the aforesaid preliminary point, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. we order accordingly.

Judgment:

1. The learned JDR has not produced the Collector's authorisation/or the proceedings in which the authorisation was taken from the Collector for filing this appeal despite a number of opportunities i.e.

31-12-1991 and 21-1-1992.

2. Prima facie, the authorisation dated 30-3-1983 of Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta is not a proper authorisation - being of general nature. Following the ratio of Tribunal's judgments : The appeal is liable to be dismissed prima facie, as contended by the learned advocate for the respondents.

3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case on the aforesaid preliminary point, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We order accordingly.