https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205786 Mandatory verification under Rule 28A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governed the Revenue's stay application, and the Tribunal held that the averments had to be supported by a proper verification by the appellant, respondent, or authorised principal officer. Because the filed application did not comply with this prescribed form and the verification did not confirm the particulars required under Rule 28, the defect was treated as fatal at the filing stage. The Tribunal therefore rejected the stay application in limine, leaving the merits unexamined until a fresh, rectified application was filed. en-us Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205786 Mandatory verification under Rule 28A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governed the Revenue's stay application, and the Tribunal held that the averments had to be supported by a proper verification by the appellant, respondent, or authorised principal officer. Because the filed application did not comply with this prescribed form and the verification did not confirm the particulars required under Rule 28, the defect was treated as fatal at the filing stage. The Tribunal therefore rejected the stay application in limine, leaving the merits unexamined until a fresh, rectified application was filed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205786