ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The impugned Order has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vide which he has dropped the proceedings against the respondents. The said Order was reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi who vide Order-in-Review dated 9-10-2002, directed the Commissioner to file an appeal against the said Order. The Commissioner vide his Letter of Authorisation dated 24-12-2002, further, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise (Hqrs.), Patna to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the respondent-company, has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner is not proper. Inasmuch as the Commissioner was directed to file the appeal and as the impugned Order has been passed by the Commissioner, the appeal was required to be filed by him only, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Fascinate Cosmetics reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 266 (Tribunal). He has also referred to the Tribunal’s Order in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 392 (Tri. – Mumbai), wherein relying upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Malhotra Steel Products v. Commissioner reported in 2000 (38) RLT 480 (Tribunal), the appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner against an Order of the Commissioner was held to be without authority of law.
3. In the present case also, we find that the Commissioner was directed by the Board to file an appeal before the Tribunal. He was not having any jurisdiction to further delegate such powers to the Assistant Commissioner. Inasmuch as the matter is covered by the above decisions of the Tribunal, we hold that the present appeal has been filed without any authority of law. We, accordingly, dismiss the same.