9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to hold that the chartered accountant fitted in the meaning of principal officer. - The very fact with the present appeal of the company has been filed by one of its directors would indicate that the appellant has become wiser after noting the relevant provisions of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982, which also require an appeal of any company to be filed by its principal officer . The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellate authority found that he was not authorized to file the appeal. In the case of any company, an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) should have been filed by its principal officer as per Rule 3 (2) (c) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The said Shri L. Satish Kumar was not the principal officer of the company and was only one of its employees. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als), to prove that the subject appeal was filed by Shri Satish Kumar as authorized representative of the company. The gist of other submissions of the appellant is that Shri Satish Kumar is a part and parcel of our company and therefore the appeal filed by him before the Commissioner (Appeals) should have been entertained. The appellant further submits that, as the term principal officer has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
