S.D. Jha, Vice President (J)

1. By the present miscellaneous application the Appellant-Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta prays for setting aside or re-calling of the Bench Order No. 228/86-C dated 29-4-1986. By the said order the appeal filed by the Collector was rejected for failure to adduce evidence of compliance with requirement of - authorisation or direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. In response to notice of appearance the Respondent-Non-applicant have by their communication dated January 29, 1987 received in this Tribunal on 30-1-1987 intimated that they are not in a position to appear before the Tribunal in the present hearing. They have forwarded written submission with a request that this written submission may be taken up for consideration in disposing of the matter. We have, therefore, heard Smt. J.K. Chander for the appellant in support of the application. During the course of hearing, to a question by the Bench Smt. Chander stated that she was relying for this application not on a particular provision or Rule of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 but she was praying for invoking inherent power by the Tribunal for re-calling of the order. She also stated that for the purpose she relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 77/1985-A, Parties - The Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad v. Vikram Belts Ltd., Ahmednagar, dated 25-9-1985. In this order the Tribunal while relying on Order 6 Rule 14 C.P.C. and Commentary on the same in Mulla's C.P.C. at Page 997 held omission to verify a plaint a technical error which could be cured at later stage even at the Appellate stage. Smt. Chander in the above connection drew the attention of the Bench to authorisation dated 20-11-1982 by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under Sub-section (2) of Section 35(B) of the Act in favour of three Officials mentioned therein in the Table. Smt. Chander stated that the appeal was signed and presented by one of these Officers namely, Jeet Ram Kait. To a question by the Bench she admitted that this authorisation was not there either on the file of the Tribunal or on the file of Departmental Representative when the. Bench passed Order No. 228/86-C dated 29-4-1986.

3. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Smt. Chander and taken into consideration the written objection of the respondent. It is well settled that in the absence of specific provision to that effect Tribunal has no inherent power of review. As far Smt. Chander's reliance on the Tribunal Decision dated 25-9-1985 (Supra), in the said decision Tribunal while relying on Mulla's Commentary on C.P.C. observed as follows:

"The signing of plaints is merely a matter of procedure. If a plaint is not signed by the plaintiff or by a person duly authorised by him in that behalf and the defect is discovered at any time before judgment, the Court may allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by signing the same. If the defect is not discovered Until the case comes on for hearing before an appellate Court, the appellate Court may order the amendment to be made in that Court. The appellate Court ought not to dismiss the plaint or interfere with the decree of the lower Court merely because the plaint has not been signed. The omission to sign or verify a plaint is not such a defect as could affect the merits of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court : See Section 99. It can be set right even after the expiration of the period of limitation for filing the suit."

Clearly the above observation assuming the compliance with requirement of Section 35-B(2) of the Act were taken as directory, does not help the appellant because as would be seen the defect was discovered before the order of rejecting the appeal was passed. The defect could be cured at that stage and not after the appeal had been rejected for this defect.

4. There is a proper stage when anything required to be d