2009 (5) TMI 806 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Verification of appeal and stay application lacking letter of authority for signatory.
2. Requirement of authority letter for signatory as per Rule 8(3) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
3. Discrepancy between the arguments of the Ld. DR and Ld. Counsel regarding the necessity of the authority letter.
4. Tribunal's obligation to ensure compliance with legal requirements for signing documents.
5. Decision on the admission of the appeal and stay application pending the production of the authority letter.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dealt with the issue of the verification of appeal and stay application lacking a letter of authority for the signatory. The Ld. DR raised a preliminary objection citing Rule 8(3) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, requiring the signatory to prove their locus standi by a letter of authority. The Ld. DR emphasized that the right of appeal is conditional and subject to certain conditions, as highlighted in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. CC. The Revenue's concern was the involvement of a significant amount of Revenue in the appeal, and admitting a defective appeal without proper authority letter could prejudice the Revenue's interest.

The Ld. Counsel, on the other hand, argued that the Tribunal had never insisted on the filing of an authority letter in the past and that the signatory was duly authorized. It was mentioned that the signatory, the joint Managing Director of the appellant-company, could produce the authority letter to establish authorization. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined Rule 8(3) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which mandates that appeals/applications/cross-objections must be signed and verified by the appellant/applicant/respondent or the principal officer duly authorized to sign the document. The Tribunal concluded that the word 'duly' in the Rule implied that the person signing must have been given authority by a document, necessitating the production of the authority letter to resolve the issue.

The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the legal requirement and the Registry's responsibility to scrutinize appeals in accordance with the law to avoid future objections. The Ld. Counsel undertook to produce the authority letter before the Tribunal on a specified date and requested that the stay matter be taken up on that day, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with legal requirements for signing documents and the Tribunal's role in ensuring such compliance before admitting appeals and applications.