Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeal memorandum was validly signed and verified by the Customer Support Manager as an authorised signatory and Principal Officer for the company.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that the expression "Principal Officer" is not exhaustively defined in the central excise framework and may be understood with reference to the corresponding concept in the income-tax law. It found the earlier reasoning applicable because the signatory was an officer of the company and the nature of the office held was sufficient to treat him as authorised to sign on behalf of the company. The Tribunal also noted that the later procedural requirement did not warrant a rigid interpretation that would insist on a separate authorisation in every case, as such an approach would create avoidable difficulty in filing appeals.
Conclusion: The appeal was held to have been signed in the proper manner, and the objection to maintainability on that ground failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a company officer is competent to sign on behalf of the company and the governing rule does not require a separate specific authorisation in every case, the appeal is not invalid merely because the memorandum is signed by that officer without an additional resolution on record.