1985 (5) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to comply with signing requirements under R. 213(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Application for leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal and for condonation of delay.
3. Interpretation of rules regarding who can sign a Memorandum of Appeal.
4. Invocation of discretionary power of the Tribunal under R. 11 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
5. Whether requiring the principal officer to sign the Memorandum of Appeal constitutes an amendment.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the failure to comply with the signing requirements under R. 213(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Memorandum of Appeal and application were signed and verified by a person other than the principal officer of the appellant company, as required by the rule. The objection was based on the lack of proper authorization for the signatory.
2. The Appellant filed applications for leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal and for condonation of delay. The appeal was initially filed by a person who was not the principal officer of the company, leading to the need for amendments to rectify the signing issue. The applications were heard and disposed of concurrently with the objection.
3. The judgment discussed the interpretation of rules regarding who can sign a Memorandum of Appeal. Rule 216(3) of the Central Excise (11th Amendment) Rules, 1982 refers to R. 213(2), which specifies the principal officer of a company as the competent signatory. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the signing requirements.
4. The Appellant invoked the discretionary power of the Tribunal under R. 11 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to rectify defects in the Memorandum of Appeal. The argument was made that the Appellant should not be penalized for the mistake made by the counsel, citing a relevant legal precedent.
5. The judgment analyzed whether requiring the principal officer to sign the Memorandum of Appeal would constitute an amendment. Drawing parallels from case law under the Civil Procedure Code, the court concluded that the defect in signing could be cured by amending the documents to have them signed by the principal officer within a specified timeframe. The court allowed the application under R. 11 for the necessary amendments and dismissed the application for condonation of delay as infructuous.