2013 (3) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

Signing of an appeal - Petition was filed against Commissioner (Appeals) for rejecting the appeal because the same is not signed by the appellant and the name of person signing verification report in Appeal Memorandum was not mentioned in the verification report. - Appellant provides the reliance on the basis of the case of the Sharda Anand Vs. Collector of Customs 1992 (5) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI Held that - Tribunal held that Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had dismissed their appeal on the two grounds firstly that the stay petition were not signed by the appellant and therefore they were required to make payment of dues adjudged by the lower authority and secondly on the ground that in the appeal papers though the verification report was signed by the appellant but name of the signing officer was not mentioned and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed the order on merit. - Commissioner (appeal) directed to allow the rectification of defect - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to procedural irregularities
- Appellant's contention based on a previous judgment
- Commissioner (Appeals) not passing the order on merits

Analysis:
1. Rejection of appeal due to procedural irregularities: The appeal was filed by M/s. Oswal F.M.Hammerle Textiles Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/RKS/41/2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds that the stay petition was not signed by the appellant and the name of the person signing the verification report in the Appeal Memorandum was not mentioned. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not pass the order on merits, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Appellant's reliance on a previous judgment: The appellant's representative cited a decision by a Larger Bench in the case of Sharda Anand Vs. Collector of Customs, where it was held that failure to sign the memo on the grounds of appeal by the party and non-filing of authorization is a curable irregularity. The appellant argued that their case falls under the purview of this decision as their appeal was rejected solely due to the issues of not signing the stay petition and not mentioning the appellant's name in the verification report. It was also highlighted that the duty amount was paid, and only the interest and penalty remained unpaid.

3. Commissioner (Appeals) not passing the order on merits: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, observed that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal based on the procedural irregularities mentioned earlier. In light of the decision in the Sharda Anand case, the Tribunal directed that the papers should have been returned for rectification of defects instead of outright dismissal. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with instructions to allow rectification of defects, decide on the stay petition and appeal afresh, and grant the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing.

4. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of rectifying procedural defects before dismissing an appeal outright. The judgment underscores the significance of following due process and providing appellants with an opportunity to rectify any irregularities before a final decision is made on the merits of the case.