https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74464 Procedural defects in an appeal, including failure to affix the required court-fee stamps and to enclose the order appealed against, were held not to justify dismissal where the defects could be cured. Rule 213(3) of the Central Excise Rules was treated as procedural in nature, and the absence of any prior opportunity to rectify the defects or pay the requisite fee weighed against rejection. The dismissal on technical grounds was therefore not justified, and the matter was remitted for rehearing on merits after allowing compliance with the formal requirements. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:32:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74464 Procedural defects in an appeal, including failure to affix the required court-fee stamps and to enclose the order appealed against, were held not to justify dismissal where the defects could be cured. Rule 213(3) of the Central Excise Rules was treated as procedural in nature, and the absence of any prior opportunity to rectify the defects or pay the requisite fee weighed against rejection. The dismissal on technical grounds was therefore not justified, and the matter was remitted for rehearing on merits after allowing compliance with the formal requirements. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74464