https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102273 Rule 213(2) required a company's appeal papers to be signed by its Principal Officer, but dismissal of the appeal solely because the grounds and verification were signed by counsel was improper where no opportunity was given to cure the defect. Section 35A contemplated a personal hearing before disposal of the appeal, and rejecting the matter without allowing rectification breached natural justice. The proper course was remand for correction of the procedural defect and for adjudication of the appeal on merits. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:53:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102273 Rule 213(2) required a company's appeal papers to be signed by its Principal Officer, but dismissal of the appeal solely because the grounds and verification were signed by counsel was improper where no opportunity was given to cure the defect. Section 35A contemplated a personal hearing before disposal of the appeal, and rejecting the matter without allowing rectification breached natural justice. The proper course was remand for correction of the procedural defect and for adjudication of the appeal on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102273