Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi

C.J. Hewlett And Son (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Cus. And C. Ex. on 10 January, 1986

Equivalent citations: 2002(146)ELT633(TRI-DEL)

ORDER
 

 S. Duggal, Member (J)
 

1. On the appeal being taken up, Shri P.K. Ajwani, SDR raised a preliminary point that the appeal is being filed before the Tribunal as against the order-in-appeal No. S30/27/82-AP, dated 25-11-82, passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin is not signed by the person competent to sign the same in terms of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Shri Jagdish Kumar is present for the appellant as a representative and the only document he has filed is letter dated 7-1-86 signed by the Chairman of the company authorising him to appear today to make oral or written submissions on his behalf. Shri Jagdish Kumar in reply stated that he is neither the employee of the company nor special power attorney holder and he has come only on the basis of this authority letter.

2. Shri Ajwani has drawn our attention to the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 read with Rule 3(2)(c) of the said Rules, which categorically lay down that in case of an appeal being filed before the Appellate Tribunal on behalf of a Company; the only person competent to sign and verify the same is the Principal Officer of the said Company. It is clear from the title of the appeal that the appellant is a Private Limited Company. Shri Jagdish Kumar also confirms this fact. As stated, under the Statutory Rules the only person competent to sign and verify this appeal was a Principal Officer of the Company. Shri Jagdish Kumar is not even an employee of the Company, much less a Principal Officer. In view of this, it is clearly a case where appeal has been filed without a competent person having signed and verified the same, and we treat it to be a case where no proper appeal can be taken to have been filed to the Tribunal. The petition which purports to be an appeal listed for today has, therefore, to be rejected as non-competent. Ordered accordingly.