https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99499 A revenue appeal was held to be defective because it was filed on the basis of a photostat authorisation and the original Commissioner's authorisation was not produced with the appeal. A later authorisation, issued after filing, could not cure the defect or validate the earlier institution of the appeal. The deficiency in authority therefore went to maintainability, and the appeal was dismissed as not properly authorised, subject to liberty to seek revival by following the correct procedure. en-us Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:43:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99499 A revenue appeal was held to be defective because it was filed on the basis of a photostat authorisation and the original Commissioner's authorisation was not produced with the appeal. A later authorisation, issued after filing, could not cure the defect or validate the earlier institution of the appeal. The deficiency in authority therefore went to maintainability, and the appeal was dismissed as not properly authorised, subject to liberty to seek revival by following the correct procedure. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99499