Curable defect in appeal signatures must be corrected before rejection, or the decision breaches natural justice.

An appeal signed only by counsel, and not by the appellant, was treated as involving a curable procedural defect under Rule 213 of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) could not reject the appeal without first notifying the appellant and giving an opportunity to obtain the required signatures. Failure to do so amounted to denial of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. The rejection was therefore not sustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after the defect was cured.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal signed only by counsel, and not by the appellant, was liable to be rejected or whether the defect was curable and the matter required remand.

Analysis: Rule 213 of the Central Excise Rules required the appeal to be signed by the appellant, but non-signing by the appellant was treated as a curable defect. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal without first bringing the defect to the appellant's notice. Such omission amounted to denial of natural justice because a quasi-judicial authority should not decide a matter without giving an opportunity to rectify a curable defect.

Conclusion: The defect was curable, the rejection was not sustainable, and the appeals were to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for obtaining the appellants' signatures and for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded by way of remand, with the appellants given an opportunity to cure the defect before fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A curable procedural defect in an appeal cannot justify rejection without first affording the appellant an opportunity to rectify it, failing which the order suffers from denial of natural justice.

---