2013 (9) TMI 990 - AT - Central Excise

Impleading of petitioner - Held that - There is no authorization of the appellant company, authorizing Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel to file this appeal. In terms of Rule 8(3) of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 Every memorandum of appeal/application/Cross-objection shall be signed and verified by the appellant/applicant/respondent or the Principal Officer duly authorised to sign Memorandum of appeal/application/Cross-objection. The appellant/applicant/ respondent or the Consultant or Advocate retained by them shall certify as true the documents produced before the Tribunal. In this case the appeal memo in respect of the appeal by the appellant company is signed by Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel as director of the appellant company. However, as mentioned above, the Commissioner s report shows that he is not the director and as per the affidavit of the applicant no authorization was given by him as Director to Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel to file appeal on behalf of the company. Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel who has signed this appeal as Director has, thus, wrongly represented himself as Director. Since the appeal, Stay application and COD application have not been filed by a person who is authorised by the Board of Directors of the appellant company in this regard, the same cannot be entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misrepresentation of directorship in filing appeal.
2. Lack of authorization for filing appeal.
3. Compliance with Rule 8(3) of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
1. The appellant company filed a miscellaneous application regarding the directorship issue, stating that only two individuals, Sh. Parmod Goel and Sh. Lalit Aggarwal, are directors of the company. The application sought to implead the applicant and requested appropriate action regarding the unauthorized filing of the appeal by Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel, who is not a director of the company.

2. The Tribunal had previously directed the Commissioner to investigate the directorship of the company and instructed the applicant to confirm whether Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel was authorized by the Board of Directors to file the appeal. The Commissioner's report confirmed that only Sh. Parmod Goel and Sh. Lalit Aggarwal were directors. Sh. Lalit Aggarwal affirmed in an affidavit that no authorization was given to Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel to file the appeal on behalf of the company.

3. The appeal memo and other related applications were filed by Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel as a director of the appellant company, despite not being authorized to do so. Rule 8(3) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 mandates that all appeal documents must be signed and verified by the appellant or a duly authorized officer. As Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel misrepresented himself as a director without proper authorization, the appeal, stay application, and other documents were dismissed for non-compliance with the procedural rules. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules to ensure the validity of legal proceedings.