2003 (1) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the authorization to file an appeal before CEGAT.
2. Requirement of power of attorney or authorization for filing an appeal.
3. Compliance with procedural rules for filing appeals before CEGAT.
4. Determination of the status of the Principal Officer for signing appeal memorandums.
5. Consideration of the authenticity of the authorization and verification documents.

Analysis:
1. The issue in question revolves around the validity of the authorization presented for filing an appeal before CEGAT. The advocate for the appellants submitted an authorization dated April 1, 2002, signed by the Company Secretary, authorizing the General Manager to represent the company and file appeals. However, doubts were raised regarding the genuineness of the authorization as it appeared to be backdated, considering the date the impugned order was received by the company. No concrete evidence was provided to establish the Company Secretary's authority to grant such authorizations.

2. The second issue concerns the necessity of a power of attorney or proper authorization for filing appeals. The appeal was initially questioned due to the absence of a power of attorney from the appellants' company authorizing the General Manager to file the appeal. Despite producing an authorization later on, discrepancies in dates and lack of supporting company documents cast doubt on the validity of the authorization.

3. Compliance with procedural rules for filing appeals before CEGAT is another crucial aspect. Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 mandates that appeal memorandums must be signed and verified by the appellant or a duly authorized Principal Officer. However, no evidence was presented to establish that the General Manager was a Principal Officer authorized to sign appeal memorandums, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The determination of the status of the Principal Officer for signing appeal memorandums was a key point of contention. While the advocate cited previous judgments regarding the definition of a Manager as a Principal Officer, it was not conclusively proven that the General Manager met the criteria outlined in the Companies Act. The lack of a date on the verification documents further contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. Lastly, the authenticity of the authorization and verification documents was called into question. The apparent backdating of the authorization, coupled with missing dates on verification documents, raised suspicions about the legitimacy of the presented paperwork. These discrepancies, along with the failure to demonstrate the General Manager's status as a Principal Officer, led to the dismissal of the appeal and the stay petition.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, providing valid authorizations, and ensuring the authenticity of documentation when filing appeals before tribunals like CEGAT.