Proper signature and verification requirements defeated the appeal because the authorised officer did not sign it.

An appeal before the Tribunal was held procedurally defective because it was not signed by the proper authorised officer as required by the procedural rules. The Tribunal applied Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules and found that verification alone could not cure the absence of a valid signature on the appeal. As the appeal had been filed under the Commissioner's directions, the officer authorised to present it was required to sign it. The missing signature rendered the filing non-compliant, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for want of proper signature and verification by the appellant in terms of the procedural rules governing appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The appeal was examined against Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, which requires an appeal to be signed by the appellant. The record showed that the appeal itself was not signed by the proper authorised officer, and the verification alone could not cure the defect. Since the appeal was filed under directions of the Commissioner, it was incumbent on the authorised officer who presented the appeal to sign it. The absence of such signature rendered the appeal procedurally defective.

Conclusion: The appeal was not properly signed and verified and was therefore dismissed.

---