https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93912 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. en-us Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:24:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93912 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93912