https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97247 Appeals filed through counsel but not signed by the appellants were treated as containing a curable procedural defect under Rule 213. The appellants should first have been given notice or a deficiency memo and an opportunity to rectify the omission before rejection. Because the appeals were rejected outright without such opportunity, the matter required remand for fresh consideration, with the appeals to be decided on merits if the defect was cured. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:46:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97247 Appeals filed through counsel but not signed by the appellants were treated as containing a curable procedural defect under Rule 213. The appellants should first have been given notice or a deficiency memo and an opportunity to rectify the omission before rejection. Because the appeals were rejected outright without such opportunity, the matter required remand for fresh consideration, with the appeals to be decided on merits if the defect was cured. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97247