https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87234 An appeal filed for a company and signed by its constituted attorney cannot be rejected as incompetent merely because a separate vakalatnama or written authorisation was not produced before the lower appellate authority. Where the memorandum itself shows that the signatory acted as constituted attorney, the defect is at most procedural and curable, and the authority may be verified if doubt exists. The omission does not justify dismissal of the appeal on maintainability alone. The appeal was therefore treated as validly filed, and the matter was restored for consideration of the appeal and stay petition on merits in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2011 16:10:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87234 An appeal filed for a company and signed by its constituted attorney cannot be rejected as incompetent merely because a separate vakalatnama or written authorisation was not produced before the lower appellate authority. Where the memorandum itself shows that the signatory acted as constituted attorney, the defect is at most procedural and curable, and the authority may be verified if doubt exists. The omission does not justify dismissal of the appeal on maintainability alone. The appeal was therefore treated as validly filed, and the matter was restored for consideration of the appeal and stay petition on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87234