Proper authorisation and verification are essential for Tribunal appeals; defective filing makes the appeal not maintainable.

A memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal must be signed and verified by the appellant or a duly authorised principal officer under the procedural rules, and credible proof of that authority is essential. Where the authorisation is doubtful, produced belatedly, or unsupported by company records, and the verification and vakalatnama are also defective, the filing is treated as not properly instituted. The cited precedent on appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not cure these defects for a Tribunal appeal, so the appeal was held not maintainable and the stay petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal and stay petition were maintainable in the absence of a properly proved authorisation and valid verification by the person signing on behalf of the company.

Analysis: The appeal memorandum was required to be signed and verified by the appellant or by a duly authorised principal officer under Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found serious doubt about the genuineness of the authorisation produced, including the circumstance that it was dated earlier than the date on which the impugned order was received, its late production, and the absence of supporting company records showing that the signatory or the Company Secretary had authority to authorise the filing of the appeal. The verification and vakalatnama also suffered from defects, including absence of dates. The cited precedent concerning filing before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 213(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not cure the defect for a Tribunal appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable for want of valid authorisation and proper verification, and the stay petition also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal must be signed and verified by the appellant or a duly authorised principal officer, and in the absence of credible proof of such authority, the appeal is not maintainable.

---