2009 (6) TMI 68 - AT - Service Tax

Verification and Signature on Appeal - According to the Revenue, the appeal memorandum and the stay application have been signed by one Shri Santosh Khandelwal, Dy. General Manager (Commercial). He submits that according to Rule 8 of the CESTAT (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 authorized to sign memorandum of appeal/application/ cross objection. held that - there is no provision in the Act regarding productions of authorization. As already observed, there is also no specific requirement in Rule 8(2) requiring production of authorization as a Principal officer before the concerned officer of the Tribunal s Registry. The process of verification in the Registry does not require involvement of the other side

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal due to the authorization of the signatory.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Appeal Due to the Authorization of the Signatory

Preliminary Objection by the Revenue:
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, asserting that the appeal memorandum and the stay application were signed by Shri Santosh Khandelwal, Dy. General Manager (Commercial), without evidence of his authorization as the Principal Officer. According to Rule 8 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, such documents must be signed and verified by the appellant, applicant, respondent, or the Principal Officer duly authorized to sign. The Revenue cited cases like Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Chandra Tobacco Ltd. v. CCE to support their argument that the appeal and stay petition were not maintainable due to lack of proper authorization.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that the appeal was filed before the concerned officer of the Registry, processed, accepted, and listed for hearing. Shri Khandelwal, as an authorized signatory, had signed various documents, including applications for registration with the Service Tax Authorities, ST-3 Returns, and replies to show cause notices. The appellant referenced decisions such as Everett (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and ICI (India) Ltd. v. CCE to support their position that Shri Khandelwal should be considered the Principal Officer. Additionally, they relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Berger Paints, which emphasized a liberal interpretation of procedural rules to avoid defeating substantial justice.

Tribunal's Consideration:
The Tribunal examined Rules 6, 8, 9, and 16 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, noting that the responsibility for verifying the competent signatory lies with the Registry. There is no requirement that the authorization from the Board of Directors be submitted with the appeal memorandum. The Tribunal found that the preliminary objection raised by the Department lacked a categorical basis, as there was no evidence that Shri Khandelwal was not the Principal Officer or that an unauthorized person filed the appeal.

Supreme Court Precedent:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector of Central Excise v. Berger Paints, where the Court held that a strict interpretation of procedural rules should not defeat the purpose of ensuring appeals are duly authorized and not frivolous. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should be construed liberally to carry out the purposes of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Department. The appeal was filed correctly, and Shri Khandelwal was deemed an authorized signatory based on the available records and his previous interactions with the Excise Authorities. The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection and adjourned the hearing on the stay petition to 70th July, 2009.

Final Remarks:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of liberal construction of procedural rules to ensure speedy disposal of matters and avoid technical objections that could defeat substantial justice. The decision emphasized that Tribunals were created to expedite litigation and provide quick decisions, contrasting with the dilatory proceedings of civil courts.

← Previous Next →