Vakalatnama requirement before Tribunal governs advocate appearance, except for Senior Advocates under a specific procedural exception.

Tribunal procedure requiring an authorising document to accompany an appeal governed appearance before the CEGAT, and a legal practitioner had to file a vakalatnama under Rule 13. The right to practise under the Advocates Act did not displace the Tribunal's procedural requirement, and Order III Rule 5 CPC did not apply to override the specific Tribunal rules. A limited exception existed only for Senior Advocates because the Supreme Court Rules barred them from filing a vakalatnama. Accordingly, an advocate engaged by a consultant could not appear without compliance with the prescribed authorisation requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether a legal practitioner engaged by a consultant to appear before the Tribunal could plead without filing a vakalatnama, and whether Order III Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 displaced the Tribunal's procedural rule requiring authorisation documents to be filed.

Analysis: Section 35Q permitted appearance through an authorised representative, and the Tribunal's procedure rules required the document of authorisation to accompany the appeal. Rule 13 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1982 made filing of the authorising document mandatory, and in the case of a legal practitioner that document was a vakalatnama. The Advocates Act, 1961 conferred the right to practise but did not regulate appearance procedure before the Tribunal. The Civil Procedure Code provision relied upon did not apply to Tribunal proceedings because the Tribunal's powers under the relevant customs and excise provisions extended only to specified procedural matters, not to the filing of memoranda of appearance by advocates. A limited exception existed for Senior Advocates, because the Supreme Court Rules prohibited them from filing a vakalatnama, and that special rule prevailed for such advocates only.

Conclusion: A legal practitioner other than a Senior Advocate was required to file a vakalatnama before the Tribunal, and an advocate engaged by a consultant could not appear without compliance with Rule 13.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Tribunal rules prescribe the manner of authorisation, those rules govern appearance before the Tribunal, and a legal practitioner must comply with the prescribed filing requirement unless a superior rule creates a specific exception.

---