2000 (11) TMI 1011 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of appeals filed by a Power of Attorney Holder.
2. Adequacy of the Power of Attorney for filing appeals.
3. Compliance with procedural rules for filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of appeals filed by a Power of Attorney Holder:
The primary issue was whether the appeals filed by Shri Nitin Didwania, the Power of Attorney Holder (PAH), on behalf of Shri Deen Dayal Didwania and Shri Navneet Didwania, were valid. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which mandates that the grounds of appeal and the form of verification must be signed by the individual appellant or, if the individual is absent from India, by someone duly authorized by him in this behalf. The Tribunal concluded that the PAH must have specific authorization to file the appeal, which was not present in this case. The general power of attorney dated 16-1-1995 did not specifically empower Shri Nitin Didwania to file appeals, making the appeals invalid.

2. Adequacy of the Power of Attorney for filing appeals:
The Tribunal scrutinized the language of the Powers of Attorney held by Shri Nitin Didwania. It was titled "GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY" and authorized him to manage matters pertaining to assets in Bombay. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to file appeals must be specifically conferred and cannot be implied from a general authorization to manage affairs. The Tribunal stated, "If the subject matter is described in general terms, then the Power of Attorney is a General Power of Attorney. Where the power is restricted to something specific, then it is a special Power of Attorney." Since the Powers of Attorney did not specifically authorize the filing of appeals, they were deemed inadequate for this purpose.

3. Compliance with procedural rules for filing appeals:
The Tribunal referred to Rule 3(2) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which requires that the appeal memorandum and verification be signed by the appellant or a specifically authorized person if the appellant is abroad. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not provide evidence that they were out of the country at the time of filing the appeals, nor did the general power of attorney meet the requirement of specific authorization. Consequently, the appeals were not compliant with the procedural rules. The Tribunal concluded, "Since the Power of Attorney held by Shri Nitin Didwania does not enable him to file the appeal, it has to be held that the appeal filed by him on behalf of Shri Deen Dayal Didwania are not validly filed."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals at the threshold stage due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and the inadequacy of the general power of attorney to specifically authorize the filing of appeals. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties and duties were also disposed of accordingly.