https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80132 An appeal was challenged on maintainability because the memorandum was not filed in the prescribed form and no evidence showed that the signatory was authorised to act for the company. The record further indicated that the company was under receivership, the appellant was not functioning at the stated address, and the notices suggested the proceedings related to the erstwhile company rather than a properly constituted legal entity. On those facts, the appeal was treated as not instituted by a competent authorised representative and was dismissed as not maintainable. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:24:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80132 An appeal was challenged on maintainability because the memorandum was not filed in the prescribed form and no evidence showed that the signatory was authorised to act for the company. The record further indicated that the company was under receivership, the appellant was not functioning at the stated address, and the notices suggested the proceedings related to the erstwhile company rather than a properly constituted legal entity. On those facts, the appeal was treated as not instituted by a competent authorised representative and was dismissed as not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80132