Last Updated on
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. When this application for early hearing was argued, Shri A.V. Phadnis ld. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the appeal itself was not maintainable. We have examined the grounds advanced by him. The authorization refers to the order-in-appeal dated 31-8-1999 and says that this order deals with the appeal filed by the department against order-in-original No. FI-367/98, dated 14-9-1998. The statement of facts however, refers to an order-in-original No. FI/392/98, dated 30-10-1996. The Form E.A.3 refers to the amount of refund as Rs. 54,66,422.00 + Rs. 1,39,323.00. The statement of facts speaks of refund claim of Rs. 28,80,545.00.
2. On examination of the order-in-appeal we find that the same disposes of two orders-in-original. In the first order two refund claims are disposed of which sums have been shown in the E.A.3 Form. In the second order-in-original refund amounting Rs. 28,80,545.00 has been dealt with. It would appear that the Commissioner’s appeal is against the first two refund claims whereas in the statement of facts a reference has been made only to the third refund claim.
3. Thus, the statements made in the Form E.A.3 are different from the statements made in the appeal papers in the statements of facts and grounds of appeal. It is clear that the authorisation given by the Commissioner is without application of mind. In view of the infirmity pointed out by the ld. Counsel of the Respondents, we find the appeal as not maintainable and dismiss the same.