Defective signing of an appeal can be cured when filing was authorised by the company and procedural rules permit amendment.

A defective memorandum of appeal and stay application, if not signed by the company's principal officer, may still be cured by amendment where sufficient cause is shown and the filing was made with the company's knowledge and authority. The Tribunal treated the omission to sign and verify as a procedural defect rather than a fatal irregularity, relying on its power to permit amendment under the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules and by analogy with Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defect was therefore held curable, and the appellant was directed to obtain the principal officer's signature and regularise the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defect in signing and verifying the memorandum of appeal and stay application could be cured by amendment by the principal officer of the appellant company.

Analysis: The appeal and stay application were not signed by the principal officer as required by the Central Excise Rules, and the authorisation given to another person was therefore insufficient to satisfy the prescribed formality. The Tribunal held, however, that Rule 11 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules empowered it to permit amendment of a defective memorandum of appeal on sufficient cause being shown. By analogy with Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an omission to sign is a procedural defect that can be corrected if the appeal was filed with the knowledge and authority of the company. Since the filing was shown to have been done with the Managing Director's authority, the defect was treated as capable of cure.

Conclusion: The defect was held to be curable, and the appellant was directed to carry out the requisite amendment by obtaining the signature of the principal officer.

---