Natural justice in excise appeals requires an opportunity to cure signature defects before dismissal and remand for merits hearing.

Rule 213(2) required a company's appeal papers to be signed by its Principal Officer, but dismissal of the appeal solely because the grounds and verification were signed by counsel was improper where no opportunity was given to cure the defect. Section 35A contemplated a personal hearing before disposal of the appeal, and rejecting the matter without allowing rectification breached natural justice. The proper course was remand for correction of the procedural defect and for adjudication of the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely because the grounds of appeal and verification were signed by the advocate instead of the company's Principal Officer, and whether the matter required remand to afford an opportunity to cure the defect.

Analysis: Rule 213(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a company's appeal papers to be signed by its Principal Officer. The defect noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was procedural in nature, but the appeal was rejected without giving the appellants an opportunity to rectify it. Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 contemplates a personal hearing before disposal of the appeal, and the denial of that opportunity offended the principles of natural justice. A prior Tribunal ruling on similar facts supported the course of remand for curing the defect and hearing the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable, and the appeal was rightly allowed by remand with a direction to decide the matter on merits after permitting rectification of the defect.

---