Harish Chander, Member (J)

1. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 56/84(M) dated 28th April, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 6th day of August, 1984 and was signed and verified by Sh K. Gopal Chari, Superintendent of Central Excise (Judicial) and was accompanied by an attested copy of authorisation in favour of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Judicial). The matter had come up for hearing before the Tribunal on merits at various occasions starting from 25th March, 1985, 13th June, 1985, 16th September, 1985, 10th December, 1985, 2nd May, 1986, 26th June, 1986, 27th June, 1986, 18th November, 1986, 12th December, 1986 and 8th April, 1987. On all these dates of hearing, the matter could not finally be disposed of for one or the other reason. The last matter had come up on 16th June, 1987 when it was observed that the appeal was signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Judicial) whereas the authorisation was in favour of the Assistant Collector. After hearing both the sides, the Bench had dismissed the appeal vide Order No. 455/87-A dated 16th June, 1987. The operative part of the order is reproduced below -

After hearing both sides briefly and on examination of the record, we find that the subject appeal of the Department has been signed and submitted by a Superintendent of Central Excise whereas the authorisation of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to file the appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal was in favour of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Judicial), Madras. Consequently, the appeal, having not been signed and filed by a duly authorised officer of the Collector, is not a competent appeal. We dismiss it as such.

2. Now the appellants being aggrieved from the order dated 16th June, 1987 have moved an application for the recalling/restoration of appeal. Sh. S. Krishnamurthy, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative who had appeared on behalf of the appellants, had reiterated the contentions made in the application for recalling/restoration of the appeal. He had referred to the attested photostat copy of the authorisation in terms of provisions of Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in favour of Superintendent of Central Excise (Judicial) Madras. He had produced the original file of the Collector and had shown the original authorisation dated 4th August, 1984 of the Collector which appeared on page 23 of the Collectorate's file. This file was shown to the learned advocate of the respondents. Sh. Krishnamurthy, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative had argued that in view of the authorisation in favour of the Superintendent of Central Excise (Judicial), the appeal filed by the appellants was a competent appeal and the Bench should review/recall its earlier order dated 16th June, 1987.

3. Sh K. Narasimhan, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, objects to the restoration/review of its earlier order. He has argued that there is no provision under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 authorising the Tribunal to review the earlier order passed by it and as such, the application for review/recall should be dismissed. In support of his argument, he has referred to a judgment of the Tribunal in the case. of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Himalaya Laminators reported in [MANU/CE/0097/1987 : 1987(29) ELT 230]. Shri S. Krishnamurthy, Departmental Representative has again pleaded for review/recall of the order passed by the Tribunal.

4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also perused the Collector's file which was produced by the learned Sr. Departmental Representative in the open court and which was also seen by Sh. K. Narasimhan, the learned Advocate for the respondents. The authorisation dated 4th August, 1984 is