Mandatory verification defects under CEGAT procedure led to rejection in limine of the Revenue's stay application.

Mandatory verification under Rule 28A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governed the Revenue's stay application, and the Tribunal held that the averments had to be supported by a proper verification by the appellant, respondent, or authorised principal officer. Because the filed application did not comply with this prescribed form and the verification did not confirm the particulars required under Rule 28, the defect was treated as fatal at the filing stage. The Tribunal therefore rejected the stay application in limine, leaving the merits unexamined until a fresh, rectified application was filed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's stay application was liable to be rejected for compliance with the verification requirements under Rule 28A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis: The application had to satisfy the procedure prescribed by Rule 28A. Sub-rule (4) required the averments in the application to be supported by verification as to correctness by the appellant, the respondent, or the authorised principal officer. The application filed by Revenue did not fulfil this mandate, and the verification also did not state that the particulars under sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 had been verified by the appellant. Since the defect went to the prescribed form of the application, the Tribunal found no need to examine the merits until a fresh, rectified application was filed.

Conclusion: The stay application was rejected in limine for non-compliance with the mandatory verification requirement.

---