9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Asstt. Collector which was rejected on the ground that it was premature and therefore, not maintainable. Against which the appeal before the Collector was filed. 3. From the facts narrated in the order of the Collector, it appears that the appellant Smt. Sharda Anand has not signed the appeal but it was signed by Shri S.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant who also does not have any vakalat/authorisation. Shri S.P. Sharma, Advocate vide his letter dated 18-5-1990 stated "I have drafted and filed the present appeal on the oral/telephonic instructions of the appellant/Smt. Sharda Anand C/O : Shri R.K. Anand. Accordingly, I am filing this Memo of Appeal that I am appearing in the present appeal for and on behalf of the appellant/Sm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in accordance with Rule 3(2)(a) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of Bombay High Court in All India Reporter v. Ram Chander etc. AIR 1961 Bom. 292 wherein it was held that "signing and verification of plaint are mere matters of procedure and if a plaint is not properly signed or verified but is admitted and entered in the registers of suits, it does not cease to be a plaint and the suit cannot be said to have been instituted merely because of the existence of some defects or irregularities in the matter of signing and verification of the plaint". It was also held that "it is open to the Court or to the officer of the court authorised to receive plaint to refuse to admit a plaint if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Y. Purshudas v. Muldas (AIR 1966 S.C. 1119) wherein vakalatnama by the appellant was executed in favour of the Govt. pleader. However, the Memorandum of Appeal and vakalatnama were presented in the High Court by the Asstt. Govt. Pleader working in the same office. The irregularity was not noticed by the Registrar. The appeal was duly admitted and heard. The Supreme Court under the above circumstances held that technically the Memo of Appeal presented by the Asstt. Govt. Pleader suffered from the infirmity as the party signed his vakalatnama in favour of the Govt. Pleader and the Asstt. Govt. Pleader could not have accepted it though he was working in the Govt. Pleader's office. Even then, it was held that since the Memo was accepted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence application by the advocate without the signature of the assessee is valid. 11. From a reading of the above, failure to sign the Memo of Grounds of Appeal is an irregularity which is curable and therefore, at the earliest opportunity the authorities should return the papers for rectifying the defects. Having not done so, the parties should not be put to injustice by dismissing their appeals. 12. As regards filing of vakalatnama, admittedly the advocate filed the appeal on the basis of telephonic instructions. The Customs (Appeals) Rules do not provide for filing of vakalatnama along with the Memo of Appeal. However, since there was no vakalatnama and since it is an irregularity, the Collector ought to have returned the appeal papers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
