https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93571 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. en-us Wed, 10 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:36:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93571 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93571