2009 (4) TMI 622 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal clarifies signatory rules, upholds stay order pending appeal, emphasizes compliance

RAJASTHAN TRANSFORMER & SWITCHGEARS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR

The Tribunal resolved issues regarding the authorization of the authorized signatory, verification process, and continuation of the stay order. The ... Appeal - Appearance before court, representation Issues:1. Authorization of the authorized signatory in the appeal.2. Verification process and representation before the Appellate Authority.3. Continuation of the stay order.Analysis:1. The first issue revolves around the authorization of the authorized signatory in the appeal. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the lack of authorization by the authorized signatory and the absence of a date under his signature. The appellant's counsel argued that the authorized signatory's signature is primarily for any contingencies during the appeal process. It was revealed that Shri Mukesh Goutam is the authorized signatory of the appellant, and Shri Arvind Sharma, the Advocate, signed the appeal memorandum as the authorized representative. The counsel undertook to file the authorization of Shri Mukesh, resolving the doubt raised by Revenue.2. The second issue concerns the verification process and representation before the Appellate Authority. It was highlighted that Shri Arvind Sharma had appeared before the Appellate Authority below, which is a continuation of the suit. The counsel emphasized that Shri Arvind Sharma's authorization cannot be doubted, as evidenced by his representation before the original authority. The counsel also committed to filing the authorization of Shri Mukesh, ensuring compliance before the next hearing date.3. The final issue addresses the continuation of the stay order. Despite the preliminary objection raised by Revenue, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant should not be denied the benefit of the stay order due to the representation of Shri Arvind Sharma and the commitment to file the necessary authorization. Consequently, the operation of the stay order dated 23-1-08 was upheld until the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal directed the counsel to file the authorization before the next hearing date, ensuring compliance for the continuation of the stay order in the appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal resolved the issues surrounding the authorization of the authorized signatory, verification process, and continuation of the stay order, ensuring procedural compliance and the appellant's entitlement to the stay order benefits until the appeal's final resolution.