9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Invalidity of appeal due to improper signing and verification. Detailed Analysis: The case involved an appeal filed by M/s. Vora Enterprises against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Calcutta. The appeal was challenged by the respondent on the grounds that it was invalid as it was not properly signed and verified by an authorized signatory as required by the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The respondent contended that the appeal was signed by Shri Mitesh Sheth, who did not have the authority to sign the appeal. The appellant's representative, Shri N. Ramanathan, acknowledged the change in status of the enterprise's ownership but argued that the appeal could be refiled with the appropriate signatory. Upon examining the relevant rules, the Tribunal noted that as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, the appeal had to be signed by the person specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. Rule 3 outlined the specific individuals authorized to sign appeals based on the type of entity, such as individuals, Hindu undivided families, companies, firms, associations, or other persons. In this case, since the goods were imported by Shri Shreyan Vora, the appeal should have been signed by him as per sub-rule 2(a) of Rule 3. However, the appeal was signed by Shri Mitesh Sheth, who lacked the authority to sign on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal was invalid and dismissed it. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal's dismissal did not prevent the appellants from filing a fresh appeal with the correct signatory in accordance with the law. The decision was based on the strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Therefore, the appeal was deemed invalid and not maintainable in law, leading to its dismissal.
|
