Sabyasachi Mukharji, C. J. - (1.) This is an appeal under S. 35-L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act). The appeal by the appellant before the tribunal was dismissed on the round that provisions of R. 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 had not been complied with. The documents which are to accompany the memorandum of appeal R. 9 of the said rules which provides as follows:-"9(1) Every memorandum of appeal shall be filed in quadruplicate and shall be accompanied by four copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order appealed against and where such order is an order passed in appeal or revision, four copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order appealed against and where such order is an order passed in appeal or revision, four copies (at least one of which, shall be a certified copy) also of the order of the. adjudicating authority. (2) In an appeal filed under the direction of the Collector or the Administrator, the memorandum of appeal shall also be accompanied by an attested copy of the order containing such direction."
(2.) The tribunal was of the opinion that the purpose and the spirit of R. 9(2) aforesaid was to ensure that the appeal was authorised by the Collector to be filed. Our attention was drawn to the authority in the instant case; which was annexed to the further affidavit filed in these proceedings. The said authority dated 24th Sept., 1986 read as follows:- "I hereby authorise Assistant Collector (Tribunal. and 'Review, Collectorate of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, Calcutta), to act on my behalf in the matter of filing appeal/ applications/ cross-objections/ statement of reference. before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal/ Collector (Appeals) in terms of S. 35B(2) and 35B(4), 35B(5), 35E(2), 35E(4), 35G(1) and 35G(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and S. 81,(3), 81(5), 81(6), 82(2), 82(4) and 83(1) and 83(2) of Gold (Control) Act, 1968."
(3.) Pursuant to this authority the appeal was filed, and our attention was also drawn to the orders passed by the Collector in respect of this specific appeal. The relevant portion of the same may be noted from the Ordersheet. The note dated 4th Dec., 1986 reads as follows:- "Under the O/A. dt. 14-8-86 as at page19/C, Collector (Appeals) has set aside the O/O) of the Divisional A.C. (Vide P-197/C of linked file marked F] A). In the 0 10) the AC, CE, Howrah, South Division has disallowed abetment on account of 1) Discount and 2) cost of secondary packing purported to be used for protection and to facilitate transportation for reasons stated in detail in the adjudication order. Collector (Appeals) has, however, allowed the, assessee's appeal on the ground that arguments put forward by the Asst. Collector for disallowing the party's claim as not tenable. In view of Supreme Court's Judgment dt. 7-10-83 in the case of M/ s. Bombay Tyre International v. U.O.I. and clarificatory Order dt. 14/115-11-83, it apears that-the O/ A passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not legal and proper and appeal to CEGAT against the same may be considered. The arguments advanced by the Asstt. Collector in her 0 / 0 dt. 28-2-86 (pages 161-197.I. C of linked file) portions marked 'X' and 'Y' at Pages 171-173 and 163-165 /C of linked file may very well form our grounds of appeal as well. Submitted for consideration please.";