Defective authorisation and unverified grounds of appeal made the appeals incompetent and liable to dismissal.

Appeals filed on the basis of a defective authorisation and unverified grounds of appeal were found not maintainable. The authorisation under section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act was only a photostat copy, and the defects were not cured despite notice under rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Because the signing and verification requirements were not complied with and no rectification was made, the defect was treated as going to the root of the appeal's validity. The appeals were therefore dismissed as incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals were maintainable when the grounds of appeal and the authorisation were not properly signed or verified and the defects were not rectified despite notice.

Analysis: The authorisation under section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was found to be defective, as the grounds of appeal were not duly verified and the authorisation was only a photostat copy. The appellants had been put on notice under rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules to rectify the defects, but no correction was made. Such a defect in authorisation was treated as going to the root of the appeal's validity.

Conclusion: The appeals were held not to be sustainable and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal rested on the failure to file a proper authorisation and to cure the defects despite notice, rendering the appeals incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal filed on the basis of a defective or unverified authorisation, if not cured after notice, is not maintainable and is liable to dismissal.

---