Mandatory signature and verification requirements can make an application not maintainable where the prescribed procedural form is not met.

Mandatory signature and verification requirements under the Customs (Appeals) Rules and CEGAT Procedural Rules were treated as essential to maintainability. An individual appeal could be signed by the appellant himself, while authorisation by another person was contemplated only where the appellant was absent from India; no material showed absence abroad, minority, or mental incapacity. Because the application was not signed and verified by the applicant or the principal officer as required, the defect was sufficient to render the application not maintainable and liable to dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the prescribed requirement of signature and verification under the applicable procedural rules.

Analysis: Rule 3(2) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 permits an individual's appeal to be signed by the individual himself, and authorisation by another person is contemplated only in the limited situation where the individual is absent from India. The record did not show that the applicant was abroad, a minor, or mentally incapacitated. Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT Procedural Rules also requires the application to be signed and verified by the applicant or the principal officer. Since that requirement was not satisfied, the defect was sufficient by itself to dispose of the application.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was dismissed for want of proper signature and verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable rules prescribe that an appeal or application must be signed and verified by the person concerned, non-compliance with that mandatory requirement is sufficient to warrant dismissal.

---